Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:47, 19 July 2019

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

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

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

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187Auto-archiving period: 7 days

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

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

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

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

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187Auto-archiving period: 7 days

Want to add new information about Donald Trump? Most often, it should not go here. Please consider choosing the most appropriate article, for example: Presidency of Donald Trump Timeline of the Donald Trump presidency (2025 Q1) List of presidential trips made by Donald Trump (2025) Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration Donald Trump on social media Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019) Mueller Report …or dozens of other places, as listed in {{Donald Trump series}}. Thanks!

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

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

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

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

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Cuozzo, Steve (November 16, 2013). "Don't Trust Anything on Misplaced Pages". New York Post. Popper, Ben (July 22, 2015). "Someone just deleted Donald Trump's entire Misplaced Pages page". The Verge. Merrill, Jeremy (February 1, 2016). "On Misplaced Pages, Donald Trump Reigns and Facts Are Open to Debate". New York Times. Germ, Erik (May 28, 2016). "5 Secretly Bizarre Sections Of Websites You Use Every Day". Cracked.com. Guo, Jeff (October 25, 2016). "Misplaced Pages is fixing one of the Internet's biggest flaws". The Washington Post. Alcantara, Chris (October 27, 2016). "The most challenging job of the 2016 race: Editing the candidates' Misplaced Pages pages". The Washington Post. Staff Writer (December 21, 2016). "Most-edited Misplaced Pages pages of 2016 revealed". BBC News. Gartenberg, Chaim (January 20, 2017). "Misplaced Pages editors can't decide if Trump is the president yet". The Verge. Wyrich, Andrew (June 5, 2017). "Someone is trying to get Trump's official portrait deleted from Misplaced Pages". The Daily Dot. Warren, Tom (22 November 2018). "Siri thinks Donald Trump is a penis". The Verge. Blumenthal, Eli (22 November 2018). "Misplaced Pages vandalizing causes Siri to show a lewd image when asked about Donald Trump". USA Today. Griffin, Andrew (23 November 2018). "Asking Siri for information about Donald Trump shows explicit image after Misplaced Pages edit". The Independent. Gander, Kashmira (23 November 2018). "Someone hacked Donald Trump's Misplaced Pages page, replaced photo with image of penis". Newsweek. Martin, Alan (26 November 2018). "The Trump penis Misplaced Pages war has kicked off again". The Inquirer. Brandom, Russell (December 4, 2018). "Misplaced Pages engages the 'nuclear option' after Trump penis hack". The Verge. Mak, Aaron (May 28, 2019). "Donald Trump's Misplaced Pages Entry Is a War Zone". Slate.

Donald Trump was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones Date Process Result June 2, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed February 12, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed September 18, 2016 Good article nominee Not listed May 25, 2017 Good article nominee Not listed December 2, 2018 Good article nominee Not listed July 15, 2019 Good article nominee Not listed News items involving this article were featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "In the news" column on June 12, 2018, and November 9, 2018. Current status: Former good article nominee

Template:Vital article

Other talk page banners

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. Health of Donald Trump was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 13 June 2019 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Donald Trump. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Section sizes Section size for Donald Trump (88 sections) Section name Byte count Section total (Top) 9,338 9,338 Early life and education 3,028 3,028 Business career 149 35,704 Real estate 4,555 15,954 Manhattan and Chicago developments 6,168 6,168 Atlantic City casinos 3,610 3,610 Clubs 1,621 1,621 Licensing the Trump name 1,364 1,364 Side ventures 7,257 7,257 Foundation 5,025 5,025 Legal affairs and bankruptcies 2,315 2,315 Wealth 3,640 3,640 Media career 3,447 5,110 The Apprentice and The Celebrity Apprentice 1,663 1,663 Early political aspirations 4,690 4,690 2016 presidential election 18,351 18,351 First presidency (2017–2021) 632 176,844 Early actions 2,743 2,743 Conflicts of interest 3,372 3,372 Domestic policy 20,692 20,692 Race relations 6,411 6,411 Pardons and commutations 2,574 2,574 Immigration 3,112 20,420 Travel ban 4,347 4,347 Family separation at the border 6,269 6,269 Mexico–United States border wall and government shutdown 6,692 6,692 Foreign policy 2,859 35,970 Trade 2,517 2,517 Russia 4,226 4,226 East Asia 21 10,653 China, Hong Kong, Taiwan 4,914 4,914 North Korea 5,718 5,718 Middle East 23 15,715 Afghanistan 3,042 3,042 Israel 2,637 2,637 Saudi Arabia 2,229 2,229 Syria 3,797 3,797 Iran 3,987 3,987 Personnel 8,705 8,705 Judiciary 4,174 4,174 COVID-19 pandemic 291 31,456 Initial response 7,681 7,681 White House Coronavirus Task Force 5,253 5,253 World Health Organization 2,673 2,673 Pressure to abandon pandemic mitigation measures 7,799 7,799 Political pressure on health agencies 2,690 2,690 Outbreak at the White House 2,666 2,666 Effects on the 2020 presidential campaign 2,403 2,403 Investigations 1,079 26,089 Financial 3,111 3,111 Russian election interference 6,491 6,491 FBI Crossfire Hurricane and 2017 counterintelligence investigations 2,573 2,573 Mueller investigation 12,835 12,835 First impeachment 10,208 10,208 Second impeachment 3,398 3,398 2020 presidential election 34 23,711 Loss to Biden 6,907 15,674 Rejection of results 8,767 8,767 January 6 Capitol attack 8,003 8,003 First post-presidency (2021–2025) 5,019 36,343 Business activities 2,382 2,382 Investigations, criminal indictments and convictions, civil lawsuits 551 28,942 FBI investigations 5,703 5,703 Criminal referral by the House January 6 Committee 693 693 State criminal indictments 2,969 2,969 Federal criminal indictments 5,948 5,948 Criminal conviction in the 2016 campaign fraud case 6,623 6,623 Civil lawsuits and judgments 6,455 6,455 2024 presidential election 14,635 14,635 Political practice and rhetoric 7,990 46,257 Racial and gender views 9,364 9,364 Link to hate crimes 3,793 3,793 Conspiracy theories 3,318 3,318 Truthfulness 10,483 10,483 Social media 5,810 5,810 Relationship with the press 5,499 5,499 Personal life 19 5,044 Family 1,340 1,340 Health 3,685 3,685 Assessments 18 6,969 Public image 4,525 4,525 Scholarly 2,426 2,426 Notes 136 136 References 30 30 Works cited 18 11,257 Books 3,217 3,217 Journals 8,022 8,022 External links 5,516 5,516 Total 402,963 402,963

Highlighted open discussions

None.

• v
• e

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consensus sought re Mental Health guidelines

Looking for an explicit discussion and more specific guidelines re mental health remarks within the article, to expand (or replace) the recent edits on Talk:Donald_Trump#Current_consensus #21 and #36.

Of particular current interest is whether the article section Donald_Trump#Health_and_lifestyle should:

• Limit/Not limit it to generic summary of existence on such concerns being stated
• Include/exclude naming specific conditions and/or name the behaviour but do not make a diagnosis to specific mental disease
• Include/exclude opinions of mental health professionals who have not examined him, e.g. by name and/or quote
• Include/exclude opinions of non-medical individuals, e.g. prominent instances with name and/or quote
• Include/exclude specific mention of book(s) The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump and/or caveats the book states or opponents state
• Include/exclude specific mention of online petition(s), e.g. by source and/or quotes
• Include/exclude general responses by Trump, e.g. with/without quote
• Include/exclude any specific review/criticism of opinions by third parties
• Any other specific actions or guidance

Background

The recent BLPN led to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Health of Donald Trump, with the conclusion was to close that article and merge content from Health of Donald Trump into here. Direction from the AfD was to discuss it here.

So a couple weeks ago first there were hasty edits here adding various things with some against the guidance #21, then there was a jump to presumption that #21 had to be changed to make that legal giving us a generic guide #36 'have a para' that doesn't give much in the way of guidance about content. (There's been some ongoing flux as to what that para is.) I'm also feeling procedurally that wasn't a clean closure and fundamentally that what wasn't discussed simply isn't a proper WP:CONSENSUS.

The AfD further remarks here and tangle of discussions under Talk:Donald_Trump#Merger_of_Health_of_Donald_Trump have some remarks offered, but are not succinct collection or apparent as agreed to.

Previously the TALK had arrived at :

Consensus 21. Omit any opinions about Trump's psychology held by mental health academics or professionals who have not examined him. link1, link2.

Link1 Strongly opposed a proposal for one sentence - mentioning timesump, armchair analysis, speculation, contrary to norms in other BLPs, NPOV, BALASP, SOAPBOX, and V of Goldwater rule precludes good RS.

Ping to Link1 participants (in order of appearance) : User:Carbon Caryatid, User:SPECIFICO, User:Objective3000, User:Mandruss, User:Markbassett, User:Power~enwiki, User:Snow_Rise, User:JFG

Link2 Opposed armchair diagnosis for ANY living person - mentioning POV, BLPVIO, no reliable source, speculation, and EXCEPTIONAL. So not based on the Goldwater rule but the effect seems similar.

Ping to Link2 participants (in order of appearance) : User:BullRangifer, User:Hidden_Tempo, User:PackMecEng, User:Objective3000, User:Zbrnajsem, User:MelanieN, User:Tataral, User:Mandruss, User:JFG, User:The_Wordsmith

Currently the list scratched out #21 and instated

Consensus 36. Include one paragraph merged from Health of Donald Trump describing views about Trump's psychology expressed by public figures, media sources, and mental health professionals who have not examined him. (link 1)

Ping to Link1 participants for this one (in order of appearance): User:MrX, User:Tataral, User:Scjessey, User:bd2412, User:MelanieN, User:TParis, User:JFG, User:MONGO, User:Atsme, User:Starship.paint

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:11, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Survey

• Include non-medical individuals and online surveys petitions, as the generic concern has demonstrated actual public relations effects/reactions, which is an actual life impact. Any voicing by prominent (e.g. Congress) seems also an actual relationship impact, but do not go into speculation of potentials for impeachment. Exclude or give very little attributed to 'medical professionals' as that is giving false information in a false sense of medical authority. Do mention there was such a survey petition or book as way to show the concern is publicly stated, but limit it to mention and don't go into these multiple lines naming the author and quotes from it. (There are links to where it belongs -- it doesn't belong here.) Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:56, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

• Go with what consensus stated - the medical professionals who did not examine him should be given little weight. I just researched the following statement in the article: "In April 2017 more than 25,000 mental health professionals signed a letter stating they believe Trump "manifests serious mental illness" and it's cited to Psychology Today. The petition was handled by Change.org but the majority of the signers are unverifiable - they could be signatures from voters who are still angry over their candidate losing - we have no way of verifying that information. If there is a way, then feel free to correct me. I view it's inclusion as an embarrassment to have such speculative detail in the pedia in light of recent consensus at the AfD. Since this is a health issue, I have notified Project Med advising them of this discussion. _Talk 📧 16:34, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

  Concur as to the petition, except for the embarrassment part. I see no indication of any controls on the petition, aside from the request to "please state your degree" (excuse me if I don't take their words for it). Flimsy. I'd remove that sentence. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:54, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

  That sort of unverifiable list of petitioners is akin to the same kind of lists generated by those who refute the scientific consensus on climate change or ones I used to see of those who refute the federal investigations into the 9/11 attacks. So, yes, that should be stricken.--MONGO (talk) 17:31, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

  User:Atsme - I revised the phrasing to 'petition' from when starship asked me about 'survey' (oops) and tried to correct the article miscopy in dubbing from the Health article. It was in the Health article section from his political opponents. Is the current language better ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:20, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• Speedy Close Request speedy close. We discussed this and came to a consensus. It's documented. We're not going to keep rehashing every week until certain people get the result they want. Try again in a year.--v/r - TP 02:22, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

User:TParis Umm not an RFC. Otherwise ... what is the consensus specifics that you are referring to ? Does it for example give a specific phrasing or any guidance about online petitions ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:24, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't need to. Please don't be disruptive by trying to rehash an argument that has already run its course because you don't like the result.--v/r - TP 04:13, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

User:TParis I have asked for discussion for specifics missing in the generic ‘add a paragraph’. Please stop with incorrect statements like “we discussed this” and labeling a call for discussion as “disruptive”. If you truly think the specifics above were covered, prove it by stating how/where you see them. Otherwise just let discussion proceed. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:04, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh good lord. We don't owe you anything to whatever degree you demand answers. The paragraph has been written and agreed to. Knock it off.--v/r - TP 03:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

User:TParis Nope, you don’t owe me answers ... nor false statements either. The five paragraphs put in and later edits were by BOLD moves and the MelanieN proposal did not remain. Often the consensus are on specific wording, other times on principles guiding content. With only ‘add a para’ it seems anything goes and not really a consensus by discussion so I ask for what there may be. Please cease false statements and objection to block TALK. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:25, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not blocking anything. I don't see anyone willing to engage with you. I see many people stating there is already a consensus on this and some are confused why you are starting this conversation again when it just ended. You're the only one who doesn't believe there is already a consensus. You've had 9 people comment, 5 who opposed rehashing the discussion. Three of the remaining four are opposed to your proposal. You're wikilawyering what consensus means and it's disruptive. I'm urging you to stop because it'll lead us to Arbitration Enforcement.--v/r - TP 01:57, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

User:TParis you can see by being unable to find/show prior answers to the questions raised, there was not any consensus on such specifics that this thread is asking about. I believe there is obviously a #36, and that equally obviously it was only a general ‘add a para’ not specific of wording/content nor stating guidance principles. Please cease personal attacks on my motives and false statements about the topic. I am simply asking for further discussion on such details as may be available. As was mentioned within the discussion about consensus. As #36 neither mandates or precludes much of anything, I’m asking for discussion to get whatever further thoughts may be. Meanwhile what is written seems to say that four of the five new paras are open to delete, and any edit at all is allowed in the one para. If you WANT that, or think that was the consensus, then just say so. If not, state what the consensus specifics you believe were stated and where, or what thoughts you wish. But stop making vague denials and allegations about my motives or intent. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:51, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• Speedy Close - we have discussed this, and all that needs to happen now is for editors to abide by consensus. _Talk 📧 03:13, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Mark, I considered it a local survey which is a step down from a formal AfC. I've already mentioned the sentence about the unverifiable petition above - delete it. Shorten the book info per DUE - reduce it to a single sentence and WikiLink to the book. The first sentence in that section already provides a summary of the armchair opinions. Readers can read the wikilinked book, or watch Trump on TV and form their own opinions. They're probably just as reliable as an armchair diagnosis. _Talk 📧 04:27, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• User:Atsme - ‘Reduce Dangerous Case to first sentence and wikilink to book’, OK, done. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• speedy close per two editors above--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:49, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

• Respect all the consensus - keep #21 AND keep #36 - it seems a false dichotomy that one couldn't respect BOTH AfD and Consensus 21; ditto to me one can come up with a para per #36 that does not break #21, so respect all the considerations (a line from WP:CONSENSUS) and keep all the consensus. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:39, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Is this a 9-part RfC? R2 (bleep) 05:57, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

My apologies, for some reason I thought this was an RfC. R2 (bleep) 19:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Markbassett was told told above to "stop trying to relitigate the AfD." I didn't understand half of this section, it's written in a way that is just likely to wear people out, and I don't see a need for this discussion. We just agreed on a new consensus, summary of the consensus, and text that has been included in the article. There is no need for a rehash of the entire debate now. --Tataral (talk) 12:52, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Tataral This is looking for statements of guidance. There aren't any or discussion about them much, so nothing to 'relitigate'. There was a loose liking for a MelanieN proposal, but it wound up not one of the 5 paragraphs that are in there at the moment. The consensus #36 seems just saying 'have a paragraph' -- and edits seem deleting 2 paragraphs and inserting 6 paragraphs. Anyway, without some specifics re what content guidance it seems you or I could put anything in or delete anything there. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:19, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I didn't receive a ping, Markbassett, even though you mentioned my user name. What's this about online surveys? Before Health of Donald Trump was redirected, is there any mention of an online survey? And yes, maybe this is too complex. starship.paint (talk) 13:45, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, it's "petition" not "survey" ... I will fix it. Markbassett (talk) 02:25, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

None of those pings were sent—there was no signature in the edit that added them. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:54, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Mandruss Thanks, I'll try to fix that. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:04, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

User:MrX You reverted multiple edits in one go, including this correction; I will reinstate it. As mentioned here, the cite does not support the wording shown -- saying petition (not 'letter') at change.org, and mentioned not assured of actually being mental health professionals. And this is the initial bit on the item out of the Health article, I'm instead using the conclusion of 41,000 signatures sent to Congress. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:47, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

It`s much too complex. 107.217.84.95 (talk) 18:40, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I won’t be editing much for a while. May not return. Just a note. starship.paint (talk) 00:48, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Markbassett why did you ping me? I'm happy to opine about a specific content proposal but I have no interest in a tl;dr discussion about god knows what.- MrX 🖋 02:24, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

User:MrX You were a participant in past discussion on mental health content guidelines so ping you as this may relate to your pirior concerns. If you've no longer an interest in doing content guidelines is up to you. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:10, 29 June 2019 (UTC).

I'm confused and I just want to sit by the pool and drink cocktails. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:09, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, me too, although po folk like me have to settle for bathtub and fruit juice. This one feels like people just walked away from it, and the consensus is hard to discern and seems largely de facto in nature. That's not how I like to see things, but who am I to complain? ―Mandruss ☎ 15:25, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Mark, in your recent edit where you said you were reducing the info about the book, you also deleted the sentence where Trump responds to comments about his mental health. I thought we had consensus to include that. MelanieN alt (talk) 16:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

User:MelanieN - (sorry for delay, I didn’t see a ping on this) I don’t think so ... nothing I spotted said include that remark in archive 100 discussion ‘what is the current consensus’. That section had MelanieN describing the consensus #36 as not locking in specific wording, and thinking we should state consensus on the TYPE of thing we can say in this para.

I note the para does not yet include describing views of public figures and media about President Trump’s mental health as phrased at consensus #36, but that particular snippet seems not what was meant nor Trump intended as the sole public figure. The public figures remarks seem the questions/declarations from the prior Health article and not meaning what Trump said. In the cite that bit actually is not the RS lead given as his general response (‘declared he was perfectly sane and accused his critics of raising questions to score political points’) nor his response to Dangerous Case which the text wording might be misread as. It seems part of a tweet referring to the election as proof of competence ‘won the presidency on his first try, that would qualify as genius and a very stable genius’. Anyway, it was deleted from the discussion in Survey Atsme wanted the book part ‘reduce it to a single sentence’ which seemed about the text read as 3 sentences about it. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:25, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I have restored the consensus version of this material. It should not be changed unless there is an overriding consensus to do so (not just the same one or two editors who dissented to the first consensus). - MrX 🖋 02:28, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

MrX, it looks to me as if Mark removed part of your “consensus restoration”, including a sentence about the book’s conclusions, as well as the sentence where Trump responds. His edit summary was reduce book coverage to 1 line and wikilink per TALK at “Consensus sought re Mental Health guidelines”. Mark, could you please explain where you “sought consensus re Mental Health guidelines” and what was said? In the meantime I am going to restore Trump’s defense of his own mental health, since you said nothing about that in your edit summary; possibly deleted by accident. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:42, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Markbassett deleted that sentence twice: I don't see that a new consensus has been reached, so I think he has some explaining to do.- MrX 🖋 00:54, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

User:MelanieN ? Umm... re ‘please explain where you’ ? you started by saying the answer as given in edit comment “per TALK at “Consensus sought re Mental Health guidelines”.” That is the title of the thread we are currently TALKing in. More specifically the Talk about it was in the Survey subsection, from Atsme desire to reduce the Dangerous book section to one line. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:38, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Markbassett, please don't make significant changes to the consensus wording unless you form a new consensus with at least as many participants.- MrX 🖋 12:21, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

User:MrX That’s not a viable notion and one not generally acceptable/accepted — I think #36 itself failed to meet that. Also, the TALK for #36 said no specific language and for later discussion, so specific language is not in #36 and this notion would be contrary to #36 backstory. Otherwise, observe this *is* seeking general discussion of whatever as #36 TALK mentioned discussion on specifics - and it has pinged everyone in the multiple links of consensus #21 and #36 to get whichever input on the points of concern from those previously involved. Only way to seek getting more input would seem RFCs. RFCs to me seem right if a specific item surfaces. Are you thinking a general call would be a better approach for inputs ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:54, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

We should all strive for clarity in our communication with one another. If you will simply propose the change in a clear, limited scope discussion, I'm sure we can determine if your proposed text has consensus. It's as easy as "Should we change "xxx" to "yyy"? Cheers. - MrX 🖋 16:51, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

User:MrX Not a thread about me proposing. The thread is looking for an explicit discussion and more specific content guidance re mental health, to expand (or replace) the recent edits on current consensus #21 and #36. The talk behind #36 said specifics would be discussed, so I’m trying to get some of that discussion to happen. In the Survey section, put whatever edit specific notions you may have. At the moment, looks like no specifics other than ‘one paragraph’. The consensus #36 did not include specifying a guideline or a specific wording as other numbered consensus did. That allows almost anything - Edits could be material not from the Health article, the other four added paras could be deleted, the Fury book might be added, the Dangerous book might be deleted — it has all been done & open to the BOLD approach. So go ahead with either Survey talk or edits. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:43, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

The main discussion on this subject, with extensive discussion and good participation, was the now-archived Merger of Health of Donald Trump about how to carry out the merge. Mark's followup section here, “Consensus sought re Mental Health guidelines”, has had much less participation and it does not replace the main discussion. (I think TParis and Tataral spoke for most of us on that score; there was little participation in the new discussion because we all thought the issue had been settled.) The consensus version at that earlier discussion included a second sentence about the book’s conclusions which Mark/Atsme decided to remove, but I will say I am OK with removing it. That version also included Trump’s own description of his mental health; no discussion or consensus here has said to leave it out, but Mark has removed it twice. Isn't it policy that if we report negative material or criticism of a living person, we also include their response? Do I now have to open still another separate discussion, about whether to retain Trump’s description of his own mental health (which was formerly agreed to), or can it now remain in the article? -- MelanieN (talk) 16:19, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

User:MelanieN Feel free to do separate topics, though it seems within this thread Survey scope at the Atsme remark is the place with discussion already started. Also feel free to note prior edits BOLDly flowed, and not resulted in specifics followed nor larger guidelines stated so... by your own posts in Archive 100 just about everything seems intentionally left open to more of that.

As to the line itself... just doesn’t seem to actually do an honest WP:BALANCE nor to fairly present a Trump response to Dangerous Case. The cited NY Times article describes his general response as declaring he was perfectly sane and accused his critics or raising questions to score political points. The notion of showing Trump response does not seem served by instead OR selection/trimming a partial quote out of context a tweet about his winning the presidency being proof of genius that seems a response countering separate stupidity charges in “Fire and Fury”. The juxtaposition in article may appear as if it is a response to Dangerous Case, when instead the NY Times cite places this close behind “Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House” and months after “Dangerous”. Whether one should also show BALANCE with counter views as the NYTimes does with Conway (e.g. “The never-ending attempt to nullify an election is tiresome”) has it’s own questions of should it be a later paragraph or a second line on each or what overall limits on QUOTEFARM should be. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:49, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Our article cites TWO publications which questioned his mental health, and there have been others which we did not mention. Clearly he was responding to the totality of such comments; there is no basis for regarding it as a response just to the book. The reference cited for “very stable genius” is from January 2018, when he tweeted this, so not likely to be taken as a response to a book published in October 2017. Anyhow, Trump has said that more than once. I have added a second reference, from May 2019. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:30, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

] The article however does not state any of that - inste it gives part of the Fire and Fury response as if it is a response to the topic. That's a false portrayal by putting it after the stated items of the online petition and Dangerous Case or the conditions narcissism, delusion, and dementia. But since it is a snipped response to Fire and Fury assertions of chaos and stupidity, speaking the morning after that book release to the assertions made, it is just not related to them. "Stupid" may be a claim about mental fitness, but it is not a mental health issue. To correct the false portrayal, one might sy the context of 'In response to Fire and Fury', and/or include a more accurate portrayal of the tweets below, ... or just drop the line as not relevant to the section.

• Jan 6, 2018 07:19:10 AM Now that Russian collusion, after one year of intense study, has proven to be a total hoax on the American public, the Democrats and their lapdogs, the Fake News Mainstream Media, are taking out the old Ronald Reagan playbook and screaming mental stability and intelligence.....
• ....Actually, throughout my life, my two greatest assets have been mental stability and being, like, really smart. Crooked Hillary Clinton also played these cards very hard and, as everyone knows, went down in flames. I went from VERY successful businessman, to top T.V. Star.....
• ....to President of the United States (on my first try). I think that would qualify as not smart, but genius....and a very stable genius at that!

So, how to make it better ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:36, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

That is a non-issue. It is just your idea that it (falsely) appears to be a response to Dangerous Case or to any other specific thing. That's not how the paragraph is constructed. Every sentence is standalone, unrelated to the previous sentence. Trump is responding to the entire universe of people questioning his mental health, including the items you quote, and that is what our final sentence does. --MelanieN alt (talk) 18:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

User:MelanieN mmm... I’m seeing the tweet as clearly not a general response, nor does the sentence standalone unless it adds a lead clause of what it’s about. The tweet is the morning of Fire and Fury, RS state it is his response to that book. And intelligence is just not a response to the text named issues narcissism/delusions/dementia, but is a response to Fire claiming he’s stupid. In the very NYT cite used it makes a different statement about his general response to things is, which could be stated. If you do not view my offered choices for edit as distinctly better, is there one you at least feel is about as good ? (Say the tweet as his response to Fire&Fury, give the NYT description of his general response, drop the line...). RSVP, Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:35, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

User:MelanieN. Haven’t heard further from you on correction/improvement preferences. The tweet is not a response to the article text Dangerous nor the article mentioned online survey — the juxtaposition perhaps misleading. It is the morning after Fire and Fury and RS say it is a response to those assertions of chaotic and stupid, and the cite gives a different description of what they feel his general response is. SO... your earlier response seemed to think the unstated year apart will mean readers don’t get misled, and that the tweet is a general response despite the cited article. Can you provide some proposed text and/or cite? Otherwise — before I try another edit on it - other than delete I’ve offered other possibles, so would you have a second-best like or acceptable feel for any of: giving what the cite actually says is general response, or to add a clarifying lead that the tweet is about Fire, show the full tweet, or some combination ? RSVP Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:36, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Mark, I’m out of town and cannot log in with my main acvount, so I only saw this by accident. I will be better able to respond in a few days. Offhand my thought is: since you are so hung up on his timing or motivation for that one tweet, I can just delete that reference and replace it with others that are not a response to anything in particular - since he has said this often. It is his opinion of his own mental status and abilities, and per BLP he is entitled to have his view represented. MelanieN alt (talk) 15:42, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

User:MelanieN OK, pick this up when you get back. I'll be interested to see if you find Trump using the phrase before 5 January 2018, but while I think you may be able to find some third party confusions by Google or some secondary mentions of it by Trump, it seems clear that wider use later does not change the origin -- similar to "alternative facts" for example. Pending any agreement to delete the whole, I will put in an intermediate edit from the selections above that keeps the phrase, and adds the Fire and Fury basis as a placeholder to pick up from. Again, the edit wanted was deleting down to one line for Dangerous Case "User:Atsme - ‘Reduce Dangerous Case to first sentence and wikilink to book’, OK, done." If you want to bump this to the mentioned separate discussion (or a RFC) remains an option, but I think it can be worked here. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:02, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Mark, as early as 2016 he was claiming that "I have one of the great temperaments. I have a winning temperament." You went ahead and tied that January 2018 comment to Fire and Fury, but that creates a false impression as if it was the only time he ever said that and only in response to allegations. I think we need to mention that he has repeated the "very stable genius" boast multiple times since then, spontaneously and not in response to anything. Like the third reference, which is from May 2019 and is NOT a response to Fire and Fury. The latest example was just last week. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:04, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Consensus #37 - anyone?

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

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

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

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

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

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

soibangla (talk) 18:40, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

Transclude Presidency?

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

This concept is sandboxed here.

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

• Strong support - an excellent idea that precisely embodies the goal of summary style, assists in the goal of trimming this article, and (hopefully) directs more editing eyes to Presidency of Donald Trump. Mandruss, I assume there are no WP:TLIMIT difficulties? -- Scjessey (talk) 13:07, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

  My testing indicates a reduction in post-expand include size of 597,113 bytes, apparently all due to the far smaller number of citation templates. That's 28% of the supposed limit of 2,097,152 bytes. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:33, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

  In that case, my support is strengthened. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:14, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• Strong support - I've read your summary. Looks good to me. Teammm 
  _email 13:26, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
• The "sandboxed" link doesn't seem to work right. Using transclusion creates problems, but the idea of using the lead as the summary here is a good one. I have done that for many years. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• @BullRangifer: You caught me in the middle of some testing. Try again please. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:30, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• That certainly looks better. I have written about this idea here: Misplaced Pages:How to create and manage a good lead section#Use of the lead from a spinoff sub-article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:37, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• Comment this is an important decision that should not be rushed (not saying it has been). Please allow ample time for people to consider the proposal and comment, especially given the ongoing governance and harassment crisis. I'm installing new baseboards in the dining rooms, so I don't have time to look at this in depth right now.- MrX 🖋 19:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

  Agreed. You have multiple dining rooms? ―Mandruss ☎ 19:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

  Ha. No just one.- MrX 🖋 20:45, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• This is a terrible idea. No other president’s article is trimmed down to nothing like this. This article gives more coverage about his divorces or bankruptcies than it would with this pretense at covering his entire presidency. 19:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MelanieN alt (talk • contribs)

  Do we have a spinoff article about his divorces? If not, this is the only place to put that information. The Presidency article should be viewed as an extension of this one, done merely for size reasons, and this article should not be expected to cover his entire presidency at that level of detail. I agree that this has not been widely done for other presidents, but I disagree that that's an argument against it. Better ideas must be given the chance to prevail. Disagree that it's a better idea, but please don't presume that all better ideas have already been implemented. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose — Trump is notable as a President, and his presidency should be fully covered in this article. I think there is a difference in scope. This article is about Trump the man, whereas the "Presidency" article is about his government as a whole.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
• Leaning support with concerns. The proposal is better than what we currently have on this article, but this would direct people to the presidency article over this article, and that article has a lot of problems too. I think we can go ahead with the transcluding proposal temporarily until we can create a better presidency section natively in this article. The presidency section of this article should eventually be more detailed than the lead of the presidency article, but for now it makes sense to do this, just not permanently. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose 2600:1702:2340:9470:45FD:73DE:5B30:D6DD (talk) 00:24, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
• Strong support. Strongly oppose viewing this article as needing to stand alone regarding the presidency; that's precisely why we have the {{Main}} hatnote. Readers will click through, or not, depending on their level of interest in the detail about the presidency. I find the third, middle level of detail, with all its attendant issues and problems, very hard to justify. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:47, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Mandruss, we already know you are a strong support. How do we know? You proposed it here in the first place, and you have supported it/argued for it in replying to pretty much every comment here. One !vote is enough. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:02, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

"I think we should consider" does not equate to strong support in my book. But I have added a bolded comment above, just in case someone assessing consensus here might do that so carelessly as not to notice that I have !voted separately for the sake of consistency, simplicity, and organization. Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:12, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

As for you have supported it/argued for it in replying to pretty much every comment here, you should probably have another look. At that time I had replied once in support of the proposal: The rest of my replies have been of the nature of "You caught me in the middle of some testing" and "Link fixed". Actually I have replied to no other Oppose !vote, except for "Link fixed". Perhaps you could strike that and try to be more judicious about such statements? ―Mandruss ☎ 04:35, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - There was a largish section of another article transcluded into this one two to three years ago. If I recall correctly, I removed it because it created some difficulties. This article has primacy, if for no other reason than it has 2,634 page watchers compared to 255 for the presidency article. This article has nearly 18 times as much traffic as the presidency article. I don't think it is desirable to duplicate large amounts of content, word for word, between articles. Transcluding would likely confuse inexperienced editors wishing to edit the presidency section of this article.- MrX 🖋 02:43, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - does not give what #37 calls for. The Presidency LEAD does not fit the #37 BLP part to be things likely to have a lasting impact on his life or the long-term legacy, and has things other than the limit set by #37. The presidency summary just isn’t the kind of summary that #37 says should be here & what here should be limited to. On a Side note, I see that the link from #37 isn’t properly going to archive 99. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:48, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

  Link fixed. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:00, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

  p.s. I do think that length seems better, and would support manually deleting way down as being in line with #37. And it was a clever thought. Markbassett (talk) 13:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - I don't really understand the view that doing a transclusion like this would somehow mean giving Trump's presidency less coverage. If anything, the reverse is true; moreover, it will encourage more readers to click through to Presidency of Donald Trump, it'll ensure that article gets more attention, it'll reduce the length burden on this article, and it will adhere more strongly to the summary style so desirable in articles like this. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:14, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• Alternate proposal Removing most of the information about his presidency really serves our readers badly. For a less controversial/less damaging trim to the article, why not replace our extensive coverage under “Business career” with the lead section of Business career of Donald Trump - with subsections using the leads of Legal affairs of Donald Trump, Trump University, and Donald J. Trump Foundation? I’m not actually a fan of this either, but it makes a lot more sense than stripping out all detail about his presidency - the main thing people are coming to this article to find out about. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:14, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
• Applaud the efforts to trim the article but would prefer we eliminate a whole slew of other things of little consequence. I also debate the chances many will "click through" via a subarticle link to get to the meat of the discussion on what Trump is now know mostly for worldwide, his presidency. Therefore, I humbly oppose this otherwise fair effort to trim the article down.--MONGO (talk) 22:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Good point. Rather than click through, they will try to add the missing stuff themselves - and/or come to this talk page in outrage because we don't mention or go into any detail about what they think is important. Are we ready for that onslaught? -- MelanieN (talk) 23:14, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm certainly prepared to cross that bridge when and if we come to it, nothing is irreversible, and I oppose the use of crystal balls in Misplaced Pages content decision-making. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:54, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose – The presidency is already the most defining legacy of Trump's life. Transcluding it from another article is just lazy, and prone to confusion for readers and occasional editors. — JFG 02:33, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Consensus sought re Presidency summary

OK, seeking ideas on how to implement Consensus#37 “37. Resolved: Content related to Trump’s Presidency should be limited to summary-level about things that are likely to have a lasting impact on his life and/or long-term presidential legacy. If something is borderline or debatable, the resolution does not apply.”

Concerns seemed

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

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

Inputs

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

Objection

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

@MelanieN: - User:Mandruss, where did this come from? It came from the discussion linked from the consensus entry that you removed. That's how the consensus list works. While I did close the discussion, involved close is permitted when consensus is sufficiently clear. I judged that 8–3 was sufficiently clear, subject to objection as always, and no one objected to either the close or the closer until now. I did nothing remotely wrong or even untoward here; this is how the process has worked on this page for years. One unstricken mistaken accusation of me at a time, please. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:49, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Since #37 was entirely in process, and since you're going to be gone for another week, I'll restore the consensus list entry for now. From your comments I can only guess that you may have confused #37 with the question at #Transclude Presidency?. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:11, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I did confuse it with the transclusion suggestion. At least I saw that one. So this "consensus" for major, major changes to the article is based on one lightly attended discussion (I was not the only one to miss it, and no-one was pinged). Well, since I will be gone for the next week, please tally me as a "no" vote on any proposal that eliminates most of the "presidency" detail in favor of a bare-bones summary. Why in the world can't you focus on taking the ax to less important content like "family and personal life" or "business career" or "public profile"? Why cut the one area that readers actually want to see? -- MelanieN (talk) 15:06, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Because the problem isn’t mostly in the ~14 screens giving his life story, the problem is mostly in the ~28 further screens largely duplicating the Presidency of Donald Trump. (Sometimes direct cut-paste duplicates.) There is just a feasibility issue to going on with this, as there is another ~18 months to his term to be fit in with presumably some more impeachment talk, more wall talk, a re-election campaign, claims of meddling (maybe Chinese this time for variety), probably further world events, and so on. So time to talk some guidance on ‘not everything can fit here’. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:17, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Rape lawsuit and affidavits

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

At this point it's Trump guilt by association with Epstein (old news) and Acosta (new news), with no shortage of innuendo. Wait for more. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:50, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Not for this article. You might ask at the allegations article, but the October 2016 case just before election was viewed with suspicion by the major RS and did not get coverage, as contrasted to actual tapes and people willing to appear in public allegations. This gets mentioned occasionally in TALK, but seems a fringe item. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 11:43, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree this is not ready for "primetime" yet, but the notion that it is a "fringe item" is ridiculous. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:29, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

It’s not part of mainstream or WP:MAINSTREAM, and I would advise against running the question thru yet another time after many rejections. At most it would seem another in the Allegations article. But if you want to rerun the question here yet again, you can. This morning’s story du jour was Bill Clinton alleged involvement — all just SPECULATION as far as I see. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Clinton has nothing do with this..he`s not president trump is..please add the links...the information is relevant.2600:1702:2340:9470:1903:7553:C980:E8BE (talk) 16:12, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Budget deficit

Why isn't the rapidly growing federal budget deficit mentioned in the introduction? Isn't that quite an important thing to mention? I can't add anything myself because the page is protected, so maybe someone else could add this. --Pjoona11 (talk) 14:32, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Since this concerns administration policies that are less biographically significant, it is covered in Presidency of Donald Trump. Also, it's hard to find mainstream media coverage to use as references because nobody ever talks about deficits and debts when Republicans are in charge. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:01, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I`d like to know why are my posts here are being taking down and who is doing it ? I wasn`t aware that I was writing anything controversial or against the rules..it seems that everyone is ignoring the deficit as though it`s not important..it appeared to be important before the election. 2600:1702:2340:9470:1903:7553:C980:E8BE (talk) 16:20, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

• There’s a table in the economy section at Presidency of Donald Trump#Economy. It’s not the major concern that it was when the deficit first surged a decade ago. Probably should be a “Debt” column added at the table in Presidency of Barack Obama#Economy but that’s a different topic. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:06, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

The debt surged a decade ago due to an historic economic crash that caused revenues to plummet and triggered automatic stabilizers for spending. Now we have "the best economy in history," which should be resulting in lower deficits and slower debt growth, but instead we have this. soibangla (talk) 18:06, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

That's a good example of how percentage use is misleading and simple measures should be used. You can have the first year a $ Trillion added to 4 Trillion is 25%; the second year a Trillion added to 5 Trillion is now 20%, the third year a Trillion added to 6 Trillion is now 15% -- a chart would give a misleading portrayal of that as decreasing. That dollar amount of debt went from $5.3 Trillion in Q1 2008 to $14.4 by Q4 of 2016 is not at all obvious. In any wording here (not suggested), the wording should be in direct measurement -- just like in Presidency of Donald Trump the numbers are all in dollars -- the deficit in dollars, the debt in dollars, the income and outlay in dollars. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Edits in "Racial views" section

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

I don't think there has been any substantial changes in the section, only some copyediting and trimming excessive citations. I agree that the section's written content can be trimmed, and that is as true of this section as it is of most sections in this article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:53, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

We should not remove sources for such a contentious claim. Removing NYT and leaving Vox seems to be a recurrent theme with these bold edits. In a couple of weeks, there will be editors (with a single character for their user page) complaining that Trump is not a racist because of biased sources, etc, etc. Trump blaming Clinton is important, and has been discussed previously. The section does not need trimming. Other sections probably do. This material needs to be restored. - MrX 🖋 10:52, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Every contentious claim remains sourced. While I consider The New York Times to be a better source than Vox when all else is equal, sometimes the content is simply more relevant to a Vox reference than a New York Times reference. We do not need to give in to hypothetical disgruntled editors by adding more sources when the sources we already have are more than sufficient to verify the material. It's important to note that this article is not actually calling Trump racist, it is reflecting that certain things he has said and done have been considered racist, and that these considerations are notable.

The New York Times is the U.S. newspaper of record. They have the most credentialed, most reputable newsroom in the country. I oppose the removal of references to the Times on a WP:CITEKILL basis other than under exceptional circumstances. The "relevance" of content to a source really doesn't matter. When choosing among reliable sources, we should choose the most reliable ones that support the content. R2 (bleep) 17:36, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Can you outline what material you believe has been removed? My edits were mostly copyediting and trimming citations. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

And after restoring 123IP's changes, I strived to further improve the text. Nothing substantial has been removed, just moderately rephrased and slightly trimmed. Editors can keep going from here. — JFG 19:57, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Consensus material removed

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

If I recall correctly, that paragraph came from another article that was merged into here. There are three major issues here. First of all, we should give more careful consideration to how we actually discuss Trump's mental health, if at all. Secondly, we don't need to be talking about some petition from the public about his mental health. Thirdly, his comments such as "very stable genius" are clearly added to the end of that paragraph for non-neutral purposes. Onetwothreeip (talk) 12:04, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

It does not appear that The Four Deuces and Onetwothreeip participated in those discussions leading me to conclude that a formal Rfc may be needed to bring in outside voices as well as the regulars here to properly determine concensus. For the record, I think the changes made by Onetwothreeip are much better and more neutral.--MONGO (talk) 12:43, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

They can propose a new consensus if they like, but for now the current consensus stands. It needs to be restored.- MrX 🖋 13:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

The text begins, "Numerous public figures, media sources, and mental health professionals have speculated that Trump may have mental health issues. The most common diagnosis cited is narcissistic personality disorder , some cite delusional disorder; some suggest early dementia." We could also say that numerous scientists dispute global warming or some scientists claim aliens have landed. While true, it implies a higher level of support than actually exists. But Allen Frances, who chaired the task force that defined NPD, says that Trump "may be a world-class narcissist, but this doesn't make him mentally ill, because he does not suffer from the distress and impairment required to diagnose mental disorder." Most mental health professionals of course will not disgnose a person they have not examined. So I see this as a BLP violation. TFD (talk) 14:41, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

To be clear..it IS a BLP violation, even for a public figure. But I still say a formal Rfc is mandatory.--MONGO (talk) 15:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Maybe we could discuss it first. I don't necessarily mind that we mention that some mental health professionals consider Trump mentally ill, if sufficient weight exists, just that it is presented as an undisputed finding. I think that first we need to determine the extent to which the assessment is accepted, and how unusual it is for a U.S. president. I suspect that a lot of them - from both parties - would have scored high on personality disorder scales. TFD (talk) 16:19, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

With the multitude of good quality reliable sources available, it is hard for me to see how this could possibly be a violation of WP:BLP, a policy with which most of us are intimately familiar. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:BLP says, "Material about living persons...must be written with the greatest care and attention to...neutrality." You have only presented the opinion that Trump is mentally disturbed and senile. In order to meet weight you need to establish that is a consensus view among mental health experts and that no other opinion exists, except on the fringe. Your use of the term "multitude" is weasel-wording, since it implies there is a consensus for these views, yet does not explain the relative weight of these views. For example, the number of people who donated to Swalwell's campaign is higher than the number of mental health professionals who diagnosed Trump, but that does not mean that relatively speaking he had much support. TFD (talk) 17:22, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

User:The Four Deuces - I’m thinking mental health allegations just aren’t WP:MAINSTREAM. The main cites shown seem a ranty book The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump and an online survey, and a cute tweet snip responding to Fire and Fury assertions he’s stupid which is off topic of mental health. I just expect authorities in the field regard armchair diagnosis as unethical and unreliable so do not do it. That a narrative is going around is sure. But it seems like much of it may be Tabloid stuff or partisan Smear campaign. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:46, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Markbassett, that's basically my position as well. The idea that a psychiatrist can diagnose someone that they've never examined is not a mainstream view, and in fact, is considered unethical, dangerous, and inaccurate by the profession. It's not the purpose of Misplaced Pages to give a platform to these kinds of views. Cosmic Sans (talk) 18:58, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

• "Armchair" psychiatric diagnoses such as these are, by their very nature, fringe opinions. The APA, which is the largest and most authoritative organization for psychiatrists, has made it clear that "a proper psychiatric evaluation requires more than a review of television appearances, tweets, and public comments. Psychiatrists are medical doctors; evaluating mental illness is no less thorough than diagnosing diabetes or heart disease... The Goldwater Rule embodies these concepts and makes it unethical for a psychiatrist to render a professional opinion to the media about a public figure unless the psychiatrist has examined the person and has proper authorization to provide the statement." ] In simpler terms, these kind of armchair diagnoses are junk science and do not belong in a BLP. Cosmic Sans (talk) 17:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what the APA says. We go by what reliable sources say, and we have oodles of them to draw from. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:59, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

It does, though. The fact remains that "armchair" diagnoses are considered junk science by the most authoritative organizations out there. This obviously raises WP:DUE concerns, as we have a massive paragraph which legitimizes a type of diagnosis that is not considered valid by the profession. In fact, it doesn't seem to note anywhere that this is not considered a valid diagnosis. Perhaps such a thing should be added. In any event, it's quite a lot of space devoted to junk science. On top of that, BLP concerns are raised because it implies that these conditions make Trump "dangerous", to use the wording of the material. Cosmic Sans (talk) 18:14, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Scjessey, the APA is the reliable source though. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 18:29, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Agree. I have no strong feelings about this except that the existing consensus should be respected. R2 (bleep) 18:14, 10 July 2019 (UTC) The content should be restored and this discussion closed, unless there's something really new or groundbreaking. This seems exceedingly unlikely given how recent the consensus was. Editors who take issue with the consensus can pursue dispute resolution. R2 (bleep) 18:20, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Melanie..its not just a few folks...I see multiple editors removing it and chiming in now that did not participate in the earlier discussions. Restore if you must but we really should have a formal Rfc to invite all interested to participate and broaden the input of Wikipedians. With a formal Rfc at least there will be no way to reverse or edit war over the issue once a neutral admin closes that discussion.--MONGO (talk) 18:19, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Start an RfC then. The existing consensus stands until it changes. There is no rule that consensus can only be obtained via RfC on some issues, or that consensus outside of an RfC requires unanimity. R2 (bleep) 18:22, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

nonsense. There is no existing consensus as is clear from his thread. This is a BLP, and there is no way the paragraph should be included while such question marks hang over it. To me it looks like pure speculation, albeit well-sourced speculation. IMHO Misplaced Pages is not the place for that. I suggest you remove it again pending the promised RFC.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:25, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

It appears that there are definitely more people against the inclusion of this material than there are for the inclusion of this material. Cosmic Sans (talk) 18:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

The AfD result was merge, not delete. I'm prepared to discuss individual details, but I would strongly oppose outright removal of the content. Between the AfD and prior discussion here, there is ample consensus to address the issue in a relatively short paragraph buried deep in this article. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:58, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

The AfD was for very selective merge, with caution about ‘armchair diagnosis’ - including that was not called for by AfD. The ‘armchair diagnosis’ or not is a purely a #36 topic, perhaps flawed and surely predictable that it was going to get discussed further. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:54, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I think I hear you saying that the AfD close largely left the specifics of what to include up to us on this page. That seems a fair reading of the situation, especially considering the closer's comments in this post-close discussion on the closer's UTP. The closer added that "small amendment" to the close only after being lobbied out-of-process by one or two editors, easily missed by editors who might have had other views of the situation. I doubt there's a hard policy against that—the closer would have cited it—but it fails my smell test. Any such post-close discussion should have taken place in plain view on the AfD page. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:46, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, my read was the AfD directed discussion and not specific content. Now #36 directs one of the five para resulting, but not specific wording or much in guiding principles. That there would be further debate and edits seemed inevitable and necessary to me. Unrealistic to think 6 days was enough, or that something debated umpteen times before would cease to be a topic now. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:01, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Consensus #36 has been listed since June 19 with no serious discussion about it between then and now. R2 (bleep) 18:32, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

• Proposed Addition. This is my proposed addition for the end of the paragraph as a possible compromise solution. I can't seem to edit the article at this time. -- "However, the American Psychiatric Association considers the diagnosis of a public figure without an in-person examination to be unethical." ] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cosmic Sans (talk • contribs) 18:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

  The quite neutral footnote about the Goldwater rule, composed by me and User:MelanieN on 19 June, was removed here. We discussed it, we reached agreement, I waited for 5 days for other comments, there was no other interest, so I added it. I didn't feel an RfC was warranted for that relatively minor issue, and that addition was certainly not precluded by the very vague #Current consensus #36. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:24, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

It seems odd that junk science would receive a paragraph in the article while the actual accepted standard would be relegated to a footnote. It would be like having a paragraph espousing climate change denial with a little footnote saying "by the way, all of the above is incorrect." Cosmic Sans (talk) 13:42, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

No problem! With his stance on the climate, Trump is a well known science denier anyway! -- Scjessey (talk) 15:27, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Fine with me, make it open prose, but tell both sides of the Goldwater rule issue, as the footnote did. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:38, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - There was an amendment to the close of the AfD regarding the armchair diagnoses:

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

There was also the BLPN discussion that said the armchair diagnoses was Coatrack. I support the proposal by MONGO to call an RfC. I suggest proposing whether (a) we keep the health section that was deleted, or (b) limit that section to include only a summary of the examining doctor's report. _Talk 📧 05:08, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Why not, we RfC less significant things all the time. But the version including the non-examining MH professionals' opinions should include the Goldwater rule footnote that I referred to above. If the RfC simply refers to a status quo content, the footnote should be re-added first. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:52, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

No objection to another RfC to give the deplorables another chance to stamp their feet, but I'll be arguing vociferously in favor of the text as decided previously that was well supported by reliable sources and was part of the original merge agreement. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:59, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

We can't just quote the Goldwater rule unless it is sourced to a secondary source that connects it to this case per synthesis and also it is implicitly accusing a group of mental health experts of failing professional ethics. It also ignores the main reason for rejecting these diagnoses, that they are unlikely. Trump passed the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, indicating he did not have the symptoms that prceded dementia. And the psychiatrist who wrote the criteria for NPD says Trump does not have it.

@Scjessey: before holding an RfC would you have any objections to noting in the article that other views exist?

TFD (talk) 15:24, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

FYI, this APA news release does connect the Goldwater Rule to the President. https://www.psychiatry.org/newsroom/news-releases/apa-calls-for-end-to-armchair-psychiatry Cosmic Sans (talk) 15:45, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I have restored the footnote for now. I do think a footnote is the best way to handle that issue but am open to other formats. I do agree that a formal RfC would the best way to reach a definitive conclusion on this - rather than three or four informal discussions, each participated in by different people, as is the current case. I am out of town right now; if no one has proposed an RfC by the time I get back I will start one myself --MelanieN alt (talk) 18:44, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Any RfC should ping all participants in the prior discussion as well as this one. R2 (bleep) 16:59, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I think that goes against Misplaced Pages:Canvassing - "Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions." In this case you would be canvassing editors from a group which voted in favor of one position. Editors are perfectly capable of following this discussion without being canvassed. TFD (talk) 18:41, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

No, it's explicitly allowed by WP:APPNOTE (notifications allowed to Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)), and if whoever starts the RfC doesn't do it, I will. R2 (bleep) 19:28, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

That's how I read the contradictory, confusing, incongruent (i.e. typical) guidance. We spend as much time debating unclear process rules as we do content. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:16, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

R2, I stand corrected. But won't it be hard to identify and contact every editor who has participated in previous discussions on this and other closely related topics? You've got 101 archived pages to go through. TFD (talk) 05:27, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

(Either) an edit request or a grammar debate

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

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

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

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

 Not done - Read the sentence again and see Barack Obama#Legislative career for Obama's prior government service. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:10, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I've made a slight alteration to remove possible confusion about this. It is clear the IP address thought the quote meant that all other presidents had both military and government experience. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:17, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

And I've challenged that by reversion. I can't see adding an extraneous word to a sentence that has stood unchanged for years, with no more justification than a misunderstanding by one reader from Sweden (no disrespect to the home of the Nobel Prize, Jenny Lind, ABBA, and Swedish meatballs and massage). ―Mandruss ☎ 09:20, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

You should withdraw that disgraceful and quite frankly confusing remark. You could have made whatever point you're trying to make without that. We should aim to write in the clearest way possible, and it is reasonable to act on instances where there is demonstrated to be a lack of clarity. If you object to "without either prior military or government service", I would accept "without either military or government service", as it can be assumed the service refers to the past. I would also change "service" to "experience". Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:45, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

"Or" implies "either". That's basic English grammar. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but we can make it clearer by changing a word. The burden is on us to present the information as clearly as possible, not on the reader. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:51, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Again, it is suboptimal writing to add extraneous words, and the "lack of clarity" has not been sufficiently demonstrated to justify doing that. If clarity could be improved without either the extraneous word or something equally undesirable, I'd have no objection. Note that the meaning of the preceding sentence was perfectly clear without the stricken word. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:59, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

It's not extraneous to write a sentence that includes both "either" and "or", that is very standard. I'm not proposing to add any words though, just to change one word. Obviously the meaning of the word is not perfectly clear if someone has validly expressed confusion over the terms. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:11, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

We are now talking in circles, so it's time to wait for other comments. I've changed the heading to something perhaps more meaningful. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:19, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't think you would have reverted it or paid much attention to it at all if it wasn't in the context of this edit request. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:21, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

And you would be wrong about that. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:24, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I have to agree. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the existing version of the sentence. It has been stable and well understood for years, after being carefully crafted for brevity and exhaustively discussed during its conception. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:52, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything wrong with it either, I just think it could be better, and without adding any words. Onetwothreeip (talk) 12:14, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

• It's a minor point, but I prefer Mandruss's version (the status quo) as well. Onetwothreeip's version is slightly more awkward in my view. I hope we can move on. R2 (bleep) 16:56, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

+1 for "status quo is fine" on this one. — JFG 20:00, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

• CHANGE: The old version *is* ambiguous, the R2 version is a bit better, but small as it may be, I think at least trying (instead of arguing over whether to try) is the obvious better course.

• Was: and the first one without prior military or government service.
• R2: and the first one without either military or government service.
• or?: and the first without any prior military or government service.

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

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

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

GA nomination

I have nominated this article for GA review, given that it's been relatively stable thanks to the consensus process, and there are no obvious unaddressed flaws in it, apart perhaps from its length. Hopefully it has a chance of passing this time. Good luck to the reviewer(s), and rest assured that a large number of regular editors of all stripes will be happy to help iron out any perceived issues. — JFG 13:34, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

JFG, I noticed its nomination and came here because of it. In looking it over, I would be inclined to quick fail it. I would suggest it lacks stability as there's thousands of KB added/removed most days. This is a small percentage of this article (more on this in a moment) but large in terms of article stability sense. Also given its immense size I don't see how it passes GA Criteria 3B and given the extensive discussion this article has about splits and changes an individual GA reviewer is going to be ill suited to helping that discussion along. Either of these on their own would be enough to sink a normal nomination and both of these together are more enough, in this somewhat experienced GA reviewer's opinion, to quickfail. However, out of respect for you and the other editors who work hard on this article (and a general desire to not get embroiled in AP2) I will not be doing so. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:48, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• User:JFG - I think it will and should be quick failed ... Beyond just the lack of stability and frequency of issues resulting in reverts or asserted as edit wars or disruptive and always of a RFC in prospect, and always under sanctions. I think it has been up for GA before (e.g. archive 1, 55, 59) and nothing from those fails is obvious as a criteria completed. I think it’s maybe gotten less good in some ways of a writing & article sense - the article size/clutter is poor style and in GA terms just doesn’t stay on topic. About same at has citation needs and more need for cites to be full data like accessdate or publisher, and still seeing opinion pieces. It did move from C class long ago to B class as it no longer has banner tags and tons of citation needed tags. Keeping it half-decent despite controversy is an accomplishment ... but just doesn’t seem like a GA candidate. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:45, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• Frequent changes, lots of contention, an RFC on the works, sanctions (and sanctions for good reason)... not an equation for a GA. Cosmic Sans (talk) 16:16, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

• I'm not familiar with the GA process, but I'll just say that I think the failure to include that Trump led the birther movement in the lede is an unacceptable and an obvious blight on this article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:09, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • For someone who apparently has obviously mastered the art of conspiracy theories, it is no surprise that the birther claim is one of them. It technically already is covered in the lead, at "Trump has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency." Besides, neither the body of the Donald Trump article nor this article states that Trump "led" the conspiracy movement, though they do say that he was the leading proponent or the most prominent promoter of the consistently debunked theory (even the conservative National Review would admit that). Gamingforfun 02:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
• In many ways the article is "good" - the level of scrutiny and discussion that goes into every edit ensure it meets most of the criteria. Stability is an issue though, and as long as sections such as the above-discussed mental health section, which violates WP:BLP and WP:SPECULATION, are still there I don't see that it has much chance of meeting the bar for starred status.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:50, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Sources would also be a problem as the majority of the sources are daily news releases over journalistic or academic publications (Churnalism).--Moxy 🍁 17:59, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

If you want to beef up the sourcing, I recommend: (1) Alan Abramowitz. 2018. The Great Alignment: Race, Party Transformation, and the Rise of Donald Trump. Yale University Press. (2) John Sides, Michael Tesler, Lynn Vavreck. 2018. Identity Crisis: The 2016 Presidential Campaign and the Battle for the Meaning of America. Princeton University Press. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:06, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

That would be great....as we have a few sources that have retracted statements in them and a few with updates......copies for all to see. ..

Alan I. Abramowitz (2018). The Great Alignment: Race, Party Transformation, and the Rise of Donald Trump. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-20713-2.

John Sides; Michael Tesler; Lynn Vavreck (30 October 2018). Identity Crisis: The 2016 Presidential Campaign and the Battle for the Meaning of America. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-1-4008-8830-6.....--Moxy 🍁 18:15, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• This article is a million miles away from a GA level.--MONGO (talk) 08:33, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
• @Barkeep49, Amakuru, and Moxy: What I'd like to see from experienced and uninvolved reviewers is what exactly are we supposed to do in order to bring the article to within a reasonable chance of passing a GA review? If the stability criterion is interpreted as "nothing of substance should have been added to the article for a while", then obviously that won't happen until Trump leaves office, and we can just sit on it for 2 or 6 years. Yet I feel that Misplaced Pages should be able to produce a "good article" on a currently active politician. When did Obama reach GA status, and how did that work? — JFG 08:50, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

One of the first things to fix would be the Misplaced Pages:Template limits problem. ....8 over the limit.--Moxy 🍁 13:30, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't believe the Obama article ever had a GA status, all I remember were many featured article discussions. But what I will say is that the article was featured during his time in office. I'm guessing active politicians can have good or featured articles provided there is at least some basic stability present. In Trump's case here, article stability can be a very difficult thing to accomplish. -Handoto (talk) 13:35, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

This article is simply written in a very partisan, coatracking style. If you look at the Obama and Hillary Clinton articles, which are both much higher levels rated at Featured Article, they refrain from hyperbole, moment by moment coatracking of issues and have far better flow, grammar and substance. I fear Trump evokes too many strong emotions especially by those who despise him for this article to be qualified at this time. Anyway...the path to featured level traditionally means it first goes to peer review before it is nominated at FAC. The GAN process only needs the review of one person in most cases and while I respect the GAN process, it does not have the multiple reviewers and overseers that determine that the highest level criteria has been achieved. One example of a pass then fail then much later repass of the GAN process was at the article September 11 attacks, where only the passage of time allowed the article to achieve the stability it needed to sustain the GA rating.--MONGO (talk) 17:00, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I concur that the article is not GA, but the primary reason is the relentless drama emitted from this man on a daily, and even hourly, basis, that is absolutely unprecedented. It's almost impossible to keep up with all of it, which makes it difficult to curate adequately, and this is unique to the man. This has nothing to do with partisanship. soibangla (talk) 18:37, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Right! That maybe settles it then!--MONGO (talk) 20:18, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

This is a GA nomination not an FA nomination. The "drama" from the latest hour or day do not necessarily need to be shoved into this article as soon as possible. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 16:46, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure that stability is that much of an issue. The GA criterium #5 says it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. and to me it seems like while the article is frequently edited, the changes usually don't amount to much. I certainly wouldn't consider this article a quickfail at GAN. For comparison, the Barack Obama article was a FA for the whole duration of his presidency. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:02, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Economic policy

The following paragraph was removed from the article in favour of one that had existed previously.

Economic growth has continued during Trump's term as president. To stimulate growth, his economic policies have largely centred around tax cuts and deregulation, which he has credited for economic growth as high as 2.9% in his second year, although rates of job creation and weekly earnings have been lower than during the four years preceding his presidency. The unemployment rate has also continued declining, to below 4%, amid relatively low inflation, while the Dow Jones Industrial Average increased 25.9% during Trump's first two years in office.

This was the paragraph that was restored.

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

I tried to preserve as much as I can but the latter paragraph makes a number of encyclopaedic and factual errors which misrepresent economics. For example, there is little utility in characterising periods of expansions as simply periods between recessions, which is really all that can be meant by an economic expansion since June 2009. It is much clearer and more precise to simply say that economic growth has continue into Trump's presidency, and it also avoids the needless implicit and explicit comparisons to the previous president that are made in the latter paragraph. There is such imperfect language throughout that paragraph, but this gives an indication of what's happening.

The former paragraph may not be the final version and may not be perfect, but goes a long way in presenting the content more encyclopaedically and less like an editorial analysis, and neither being promotional of Trump or Obama. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:26, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I have to agree. Opinions should be omitted as much as possible when presenting statistics. As such, statements like "Economists were wowed" and "Trump promised x, but that did not happen," as well as implying whose economy is better, are not acceptable. And of course, the latter paragraph is, as you said, excessively complicated and verbose, let alone POVy. Gamingforfun 01:40, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

The edit does not contain "opinions." soibangla (talk) 20:17, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Whatever. When I want to read about how the economy performed under Trump, I find statements like "Economics were nevertheless impressed" wasteful and literally uncalled for. The tone is such that it provokes a feeling of rhetorical sensationalism or influence—a stronger feeling relative to the former paragraph—and I thought encyclopedias were supposed to be "boring" and professional, not "fun" and rhetorical. I like how everyone (me included sometimes, admittedly) uses partisan politics instead of Misplaced Pages policies to handle controversial situations, and in seeing that discussing this more is not going to get us anywhere, I will move on. Gamingforfun 06:31, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree that Onetwothreeip's edit is far superior and eliminates the editorializing found in the other version. A reminder though, this article is to be written in American English, so "centred" should be "centered". We can thank or cuss out Webster for this.--MONGO (talk) 01:58, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I did warn you that my version wasn't perfect! That is simply an inadvertent mistake on my part. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:13, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

The edit does not contain "editorializing." soibangla (talk) 20:17, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

• Much prefer Onetwothreeip as better generally, drop opinions and etc, but think wording could be worked further. Suggest unrevert to newer version and Talk edits to that.

I prefer the first clause “The economic recovery that began in 2009” for context, might even make it “The economic recovery from the Great Recession that began in 2009”. To only say ‘continued the recovery’ leaves an open question of from when.

Agree drop the whole ‘he promised 3% and we got 2.9%’ pfft.

Agree second line, reordered to “His economic policies have largely centred around tax cuts and deregulation to stimulate growth”

Disagree with then comparing to the last 4 years of Obama. This is about a Trump economic policy or events in his term, not a contest.

Agree with the line of unemployment below 4% and low inflation. Might mention unemployment hitting record lows in some areas.

Agree with dropping economists opinion.

Agree with dropping comparison of Obama stock market . Again, this is about Trump term, and not a contest. (Comparing 8 years to 2 ?.)

Agree with mention of the stock market, but the major surge or Trump bump was an event and not about two years. Besides, we’re over 30 months now so a 2 year mark seems odd.

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:49, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

The problem with a recovery since June 2009 is that it implies the recovery is still ongoing. There is really no attempt in economics to determine when an economy has finally recovered in terms of economic growth, but the economy has certainly finished recovering since then. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:13, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

How is the recovery over if there is no attempt to determine when an economy has recovered ? 2600:1702:2340:9470:DCE3:E34F:A3DE:89F5 (talk) 17:12, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

There is different measures that one could use to identify the start or end of a recovery from a recession. In reality it's not as simple, and the economy gradually withdraws from what could be considered a recovery and transitions into an otherwise normal period. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:06, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I am absolutely gobsmacked that you would say my edit is very poor in explaining economics and contains factual errors which misrepresent economics and then proceed to write that utterly nonsensical edit. This episode may be the most surreal experience I've ever had on Misplaced Pages. Just mind-blowing. soibangla (talk) 20:38, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

“The economic recovery from the Great Recession that began in 2009” The phrase would leave it ambiguous whether it was the recovery or the recession that started in 2009.

• • "Agree with the line of unemployment below 4% and low inflation. Might mention unemployment hitting record lows in some areas." Should there be a link to the article Jobs created during U.S. presidential terms? So far the list credits Trump with 11,169 jobs created during his term. This is the second-best result in the entire list, following Bill Clinton's two terms. Dimadick (talk) 18:54, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Not really sure it should be in this article, or just the presidency one. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 19:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Onetwothreeip - OK, then "The economic expansion that began when The Great Recession ended in 2009" Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:37, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

The edit contains no "factual errors which misrepresent economics." soibangla (talk) 20:17, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

• which he has credited for economic growth as high as 2.9% in his second year Readers ask: "is that number better or worse than he said it would be, due to his policies?" But the edit provides no guidance. Because "he has credited," it suggests he at least hit his promised number, but actually he hasn't. Shouldn't readers know that? Of course they should.

Except that it did hit 3.1% this year, so yes the promised number was exceeded microscopically. But really, comparing back to a speech seems just a long stretch for some way to complain about good news -- whereas a proponent would point to an increasing trend during his term. I'd rather just state the fact of what it is and leave out the contortions and spincraft, thanks. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:49, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

It hit 5.1% and 4.9% in two consecutive quarters of 2014. Did Obama have 3% growth? Of course not. GDP bounces around, one quarter means nothing. Here's the real data. soibangla (talk) 00:27, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

In this case it means the sniping criticism from ~6 months ago is no longer true. Markbassett (talk) 20:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't know what that even means, but I do know you have previously made a point that Obama's GDP never hit 3%, despite hitting 5.1% in one quarter, but now that Trump is president you point to one 3.1% quarter to assert that he actually has hit 3%. soibangla (talk) 23:06, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Well since the subject is deleting the old 2.9 complaint, that it is not true *is* another reason to delete it. As for whatever your thinking was said in some other article, not recalled by me but not relevant to this article anyway. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 11:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

• although rates of job creation and weekly earnings it's important to say the average growth rates, or else readers may (correctly) think you're inappropriately comparing two Trump years to the four years preceding him. "Rates" can (correctly) be interpreted as an invalid comparison, while "average growth rates" makes it clear it's a valid comparison. This, and the fact that it's inflation-adjusted earnings, needs to be made explicitly clear to avoid ambiguity.

That's not the normal way the stats are given -- the unemployment is given in %, and the Jobs growth is given in thousands of jobs added (or lost). Some stories now cover that the unemployment is hitting record lows in some areas, but not seeing WEIGHT to a percentage of a percentage -- again, just state the number that is, not analysis numbers that are portraying it as a comparison or something. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:59, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

In fact, average growth rates are the way the reliable source presents the data. soibangla (talk) 00:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

WEIGHT of presentation is for unemployment % and job creation number in thousands that month. That one can find a source using furlongs does not make it the morm. Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 11:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

• the Dow Jones Industrial Average increased 25.9% during Trump's first two years in office Readers ask: "is that high or low? is it better or worse than during previous presidencies, or by some other benchmark?" They have no way to know.

And still don't - because the Trump market rally began when he was elected in November 2016, which is why it is directly attributed to his being elected. There is some credit given to ones policies - but it takes the first year to get things in place and see some result, so that will be an after-presidency judgement. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:04, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

You previously proposed counting only his first year market performance, excluding his second year when the market declined. Cherrypick much? soibangla (talk) 00:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Mmm. Actually the Trump stock market rally was circa 18 months starting in November 2016, so accuracy and coverage WEIGHT favors mention of that rather than yearmarks. One could state a year boundary, but then shouldn’t use event terminology like “rally”. A rally is an event however long it is, it doesn’t run on arbitrary January timetable. In any mention of yearmarks ... I’d say ‘first year’ has some lasting perspective, but that two-year was a transitory point now gone as we come up on third year. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 12:08, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

There is no "Trump stock market". Onetwothreeip (talk) 12:19, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Onetwothreeip That was "Trump stock market rally". The Trump + "stock market" would be a more mentioned and wider area of discussion than the Trump "stock market rally" event or the generic "Trump bump" for multiple momentary areas. An NY Times example was "'Trump Bump' Lifts Stocks, Giving President a Win for His First 100 Days". Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:21, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I could go on, but I won't. You have said my edit is very poor in explaining economics and contains factual errors which misrepresent economics, when in reality your proposed alternative is demonstrably inferior, which I repeatedly demonstrated in the previous thread on this topic, but which you repeatedly pivoted from and changed the subject and did what you wanted anyway. Finally, what you and others have falsely characterized as editorializing/opinion is actually context, which is very commonly disliked and hence goes unmentioned by partisans when it doesn't make "their guy" look good. Alas, I see the usual suspects have now arrived to obfuscate the reality that there is not, in fact, any economic boom as Trump repeatedly asserts, and so I will not prevail in this discussion, so this is all I will have to say on this topic at this time. PS: I studied economics at the #1 econ program on Earth and I have decades of professional experience in this sort of analysis. And you? soibangla (talk) 21:45, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Readers ask: "is that number better or worse than he said it would be, due to his policies?" But the edit provides no guidance. That is only what you believe readers to be asking. We are not here to provide guidance on whether 2.9% is good or bad.

it's important to say the average growth rates, or else readers may (correctly) think you're inappropriately comparing two Trump years to the four years preceding him. Unnecessary, as rates are already averages. I only kept the "four years" to maintain as much original meaning from your proposal as I could, so I would certainly be fine with removing that number.

Readers ask: "is that high or low? is it better or worse than during previous presidencies, or by some other benchmark?" They have no way to know. This is not something that should be compared between presidencies at all, and shouldn't be directly attributed to any president either. Again you're pretending that readers are asking what you happen to want the article to say.

Some readers may very well want an editorial that compares Trump and Obama, or Trump as president and Trump as a candidate, but that's not the place for the highest level summary on economic policy. This is the first paragraph of the section and is only meant to introduce the topic. There is still plenty of criticism about him in the rest of the section. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:23, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Unnecessary, as rates are already averages Not necessarily, and especially not for readers who are not economically literate. Be explicit. soibangla (talk) 00:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Throwing out a number without some benchmark for comparison is nearly worthless. That's the only reason I compared him to previous presidents. Got a better way? Then use it. soibangla (talk) 00:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

You are effectively presenting a data table in prose. If you want to add a data table, you can do that. But we have an encyclopedic responsibility to provide readers with context and meaning of the data, not just a recital of noncontextual data points. soibangla (talk) 00:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

• Here is the actual edit by Onetwothreeip. One of problems: this is not replacement as stated in the beginning of the thread. For example, Onetwothreeip removes phrase starting from "Through his first 28 months in office...". I do not see any reason why it should be removed. My very best wishes (talk) 13:49, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

We don't have to replace that phrase with this. I think that was added sometime between my original proposal and when I most recently replaced the paragraph. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:31, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Sources don't use "Winklmayr"

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

References

1. Mahler, Jonathan; Flegenheimer, Matt (June 20, 2016). "What Donald Trump Learned From Joseph McCarthy's Right-Hand Man". The New York Times. Retrieved June 3, 2019.
2. Blair 2015, p. 300. sfn error: no target: CITEREFBlair2015 (help)

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

I stand corrected, thanks for the pointer to the NY marriage database; the sources I had read used "Zelníčková". Still, do we need to refer to the name of Ivana's prior husband in this article? That's relevant to her biography, not Trump's, especially seeing that she had divorced Winklmayr in 1973, 4 years before marrying Trump. I think her maiden name is more appropriate to identify her in this context. — JFG 11:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Why is her maiden name more appropriate? She had kept her married name after the divorce, she wasn't famous under her maiden or her married name, and her name wasn't Zelníčková when she got married to Trump (or after the divorce from Trump). Maybe other editors have thoughts on the matter? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Isn't there a guideline somewhere to the effect that we're not bound to use the "official" names of things? If most or all of the Winklmayr support is in the NY Marriage Database, I'd be inclined to discount that as a purely legal matter. But even if it's included, isn't Zelníčková far more common in sources? Besides, I flipped a coin and it came up Zelníčková. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:09, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, my impression also is that has more WEIGHT. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 11:07, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

We should use whichever name is more well-known. It's why Elton John's article is named Elton John instead of Reginald Kenneth Dwight. (I personally do not know whether Winklmayr or Zelníčková is more well-known.) Cosmic Sans (talk) 19:19, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

• Making a list, checking it twice ... Gonna take a little longer. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:09, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Ye olde unsubstantiated coatrack accusation

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

I'm not JFG, but I see where he was going with it. Mentioning Trump's sister is appropriate for the article, but it's not an invitation to go into the weeds on his sister's dealings. Cosmic Sans (talk) 19:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I would agree with Comic Sans. This article is about Trump, not his sister's job. Also, concerning the GA, it was quickfailed on the basis of stability and article length, though I would disagree with the reviewer that the article is too long. Mgasparin (talk) 20:20, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks to both of you, that makes sense. I've started linking, trimming, and moving content to other pages since every family member from Grandpa to youngest child has a page. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:01, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 July 2019

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

RfC: Should the section Donald Trump#Health and lifestyle include a paragraph about his mental health?

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

Back in 2017 a consensus developed on the article talk page that even though there was a great deal being said about his mental health in sources, we should not say anything on the subject in the article. In 2018 an article Health of Donald Trump was written which was primarily about his mental health. In June 2019 that article was AfD’ed, with the result to merge it to the Donald Trump article. Since the article being merged was primarily about mental health, a paragraph on the subject was developed at the Trump talk page and added to the article; it is now the final paragraph in the “Health and lifestyle” section. Some people have deleted it or objected to it, so we are seeking a definitive answer to the question: should we have a paragraph about his mental health? The question here is whether we should have something or nothing. Exact wording can be debated later, if the conclusion here is that, yes, we should say something on the subject. In the meantime the paragraph at issue should remain in the article.-- MelanieN (talk) 01:05, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Background

• Since 2017 the Donald Trump article has had a talk-page consensus to “Omit any opinions about Trump's psychology held by mental health academics or professionals who have not examined him.” Previous discussions: link 1, July 2017; link 2, July-August 2017

• In July 2018 an article Health of Donald Trump was created. Originally it was entirely about his mental health. Later some material about his physical health was added, primarily copied from the Donald Trump article, but the bulk of the article was still about mental health. On June 6, 2019 the article was nominated for deletion. On June 13 the AfD was closed as “merge to Donald Trump;” the closure included a detailed analysis of the discussion and options, and a later addendum caveat that “the editors who carry out the merger should probably consider a very selective merge that only includes the good material supported by top-notch sources.”

• June 13 - 24: Upon the close of the AfD there was a discussion here at Talk:Donald Trump] about how to do the merge, resulting in the final paragraph currently in the “Health and lifestyle” section.

• June 28 - July 14, a discussion about whether and how to reword the earlier consensus, which had been not to say anything about mental health; result was to replace it with “Include one paragraph merged from Health of Donald Trump describing views about Trump's psychology expressed by public figures, media sources, and mental health professionals who have not examined him.”

• July 10 - 11, another discussion because some people were deleting the mental health paragraph from the article. Since none of the previous discussions had been formal RfCs it was suggested that we should have one. This is it. MelanieN (talk) 00:52, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Pings

Participants in the “link 1” discussion, July 2017:  User:Carbon Caryatid, User:SPECIFICO, User:Objective3000, User:Mandruss, User:Markbassett, User:Power~enwiki, User:Snow_Rise, User:JFG -- MelanieN (talk) 01:05, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Additional participants in the “link 2” discussion, July-August 2017: User:BullRangifer, User:Hidden_Tempo, User:PackMecEng, User:Zbrnajsem, User:MelanieN, User:Tataral, User:The_Wordsmith -- MelanieN (talk) 01:05, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Participants in the June 2019 discussions: @BD2412, BobRoberts14, Atsme, Onetwothreeip, TParis, Jo-Jo Eumerus, Tataral, MrX, Scjessey, Markbassett, JFG, MONGO, Starship.paint, Mandruss, GreenMeansGo, and Ahrtoodeetoo: -- MelanieN (talk) 01:05, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Participants in the July 2019 discussion: same as above plus User:The Four Deuces, User:Cosmic Sans, User:Emir of Misplaced Pages, User:Amakuru -- MelanieN (talk) 01:05, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Support including something on the subject of mental health

• Support because of the decision to merge the other article into this one. Also because there are much more solid sources now than there were in 2017. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:00, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Trump himself has addressed his mental health, publicly describing himself as a "stable genius" on multiple occasions. That did not occur in a vacuum. Misplaced Pages is not the APA's enforcer, so it is not our job to bar sources reporting on evaluations of the subject by third-party observers. Of course, it is very common to include such evaluations of important figures, with our own articles containing evaluations of the mental health of Abraham Lincoln and of Adolf Hitler, and we even have an article on the mental health of Jesus. All of these are sourced to people who had not made first-hand examinations of the patient. bd2412 T 01:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

• Highly conditional support. Now, clearly anything added to the article which touches upon this subject needs to be scrupulously vetted for appropriate WP:WEIGHT and needs to fully attributed. Indeed, I would even go as far as to say that the burden for inclusion for statements along these lines should be a particularly high standard of consensus--if for no other reason than the stability of any such content. All of that said, this is clearly the only one of the two options that is policy consistent. We do not omit major topics concerning an article subject which are discussed in huge numbers of sources on the matter simply because the topic is politically or socially charged. Rather, we instead provide the span of perspectives on the topic, in proportion to their weight in WP:RS.

Likewise, anyone asserting we cannot mention any expert observation because of the Goldwater Rule has wandered into one hell of a non-sequitor argument: Misplaced Pages is not bound in any shape, manner or form by the APA's policies and professional guidelines. We have our own policies to determine whether content is included and those are the ones representing this the broader consensus of this community by which we must abide. The fact of the matter is, many experts have provided perspectives on the topic of Trump's mental health, and these have frequently come in the form of reliable sources. What that means for their professional standing and ethics is an issue for them to resolve among themselves, the bodies that license them and the professional associations to which they belong. And FYI, as someone who is familiar with APA standards and how they play out with regard to published statements, I think it needs to be said that the Goldwater Rule is not as inviolable as some here seem to think it is: it does happen more than occasionally that a mental health expert violates it, and there has long been debate as to whether it is an appropriate. Furthermore, not all psychological nor mental health experts are members of the APA to begin with. Some here seem to think that it is the licensing authority for psychiatrists in the U.S., but that is not the case: the state in which they practice licenses psychiatrists. The APA merely advances the interests of the profession as a whole, but there is absolutely no professional obligation to belong to the APA, and even if a scholar or practitioner who belonged to the APA was to choose to leave the organization because of a disagreement over Goldwater Rule or any other difference of opinion over ethics, they would remain a completely licensed and credible expert in their field. Being a member of the APA is more about professional networking and advocacy, but not every board certified practitioner or researcher chooses to join and we can safely presume that some of those who have commented on Trump's mental state are in fact not members. The same is true of the AMA (the other professional association to embrace the Goldwater Rule): only 25% of American doctors are currently a member of the AMA.

None of the last paragraph should even matter to our analysis here, of course--this should all be decided by WP:WEIGHT and not some idiosyncratic reading of the APA's stance on appropriate diagnosis. And this would be true even if the APA was a licensing authority. But I've seen so many comments here that clearly evidence deep confusion over what the APA is and what its relationship is to experts in the psychological and psychiatric sciences, so clearly all of this needs to be pointed out. Also, not every person who has commented about Trump's mental health is a psychiatrists, and among those who are, not all of them are Americans, so, really, let's please jettison this whole WP:Original research line of reasoning that Goldwater Rule prevents us from discussing topics of WP:DUE importance. It really, really has no substantive relation to how our policies require us to evaluate this issue.

That lengthy caveat and clarification done, I want to end by returning to my original point, which bears reiterating: while there is no policy reason prohibiting discussion of Trumps mental health and plenty of WP:WEIGHT argument for doing so under our policies, this should all still be approached slowly and cautiously with regard to what is added. This is largely the standard on this article already, I believe, but I believe all content as to this subject should be vetted here before being added, and subject to an !vote that should have a substantial majority for anything added. Where available, counter-arguments to those who have sought to judge Trump's mental state from a afar should be given, and the critical mpressions themselves need to be scrupulously attributed, with lots of detail as to the degree of direct contact, or absence thereof, of any expert opining on the subject to the man's psychiatric health and psychological (and particularly biopsychological) qualities. Snow 05:08, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support. It's WP:DUE with significant coverage in reliable sources, and because of WP:PUBLICFIGURE, deserves mention even if it is negative. starship.paint (talk) 10:07, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Just too much serious coverage to completely ignore, and the two step process provides the ability to carefully word an addition without the distraction of keeping no addition as an option. And as stated, this sets no precedent as different articles are different articles and no article is carved in stone. O3000 (talk) 12:30, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support - It seems weird to me that one of the most discussed aspects of the Trump presidency isn't mentioned on Misplaced Pages. I understand that some people are squeamish about this, because many anti-Trump sources have taken the topic and blown it out of proportions, but I'm sure a consensus can be reached on a paragraph that describes the media allegations, the medical testing Trump has undertaken and the rebuttal of the claims. As long as WP:NPOV is maintained, reliable sources are used, and the added text has the appropriate length and position in the article (not a whole section, not in the lead etc) this should be fine. PraiseVivec (talk) 12:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support. Not only that was widely discussed in sources/media, but this is the most important question about the "Leader of the Free World". My very best wishes (talk) 15:23, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

• Strong Support his mental health has been questioned...he is president and has his finger on the button.2600:1702:2340:9470:D495:B1E0:9991:40F0 (talk) 15:38, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

• Reluctantly support - As long as it's well-sourced to reliable, neutral outlets and the section doesn't get conspiratorial, then I'll support it. If we start talking about fringe ideas like Trump having dementia, then I oppose. Jdcomix (talk) 16:09, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support as long as it remains appropriately weighted and NPOV. I don't want to see another coatrack.--v/r - TP 23:01, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Coverage is extensive and enduring, and that's all that matters. Concerns below about the Goldwater Rule are silly - we're not a newspaper ourselves. We can and should report about that rule, but extensive long-term coverage about someone's mental health in high-quality mainstream reliable sources obviously belongs in their article. We have to be careful to use the sources appropriately and reflect what they actually say, but that's always the case. The attempts to argue that the mere discussion of this is WP:FRINGE likewise seem bizarre - the sources covering it from a credible perspective are extensive and well within the mainstream; there's no reasonable way to characterize the mere discussion of Trump's mental health as WP:FRINGE. --Aquillion (talk) 23:16, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

  Did you read what the oppose people were saying about the Goldwater rule? PackMecEng (talk) 23:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Oppose including anything on the subject of mental health

• Split to Lifestyle of Donald Trump, along with other sections. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:10, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I would agree with a split, but health issues are not really "lifestyle" matters; I would prefer Personal life of Donald Trump. bd2412 T 01:32, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
    • I don't see how health can't be considered a matter of lifestyle, but I'm not particularly concerned about the name of the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:44, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose As these are armchair opinions rendered from afar which is widely disapproved of by the APA. I can elaborate in discussion below later.--MONGO (talk) 01:14, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - I'm of the mind that we should be consistent regarding armchair diagnoses - see Hillary Clinton - despite what some in MSM were publishing (speculating), it was not included, and should not be. The same applies here. If we do include it here, that leaves other BLPs open to inclusion of similar speculation; i.e., sets a precedent. _Talk 📧 01:21, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I have never seen anything remotely like this in RS related to Hillary Clinton. In any case, this is WP:OTHERCONTENT O3000 (talk) 01:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Mental and armchair diagnoses, similar not other. Lots of coverage and concerns over abnormalities - limited mention. WaPo, CNN,NYT, JE. Guess it depends on how one frames the search. If you're looking for it, you'll find it. _Talk 📧 02:18, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose as unspecific This is asking for carte blanche 'a paragraph' without any specific on content or guidance to retrain things and that's just not a CONSENSUS on anything. We already have four other new paras from an AfD which largely happened because the page was viewed by as POV verging on ATTACK so caution is warranted -- and the AfD arbiter specifically cautioned about 'armchair diagnosis'. This just is not the WP:MAINSTREAM positions, it is a number of individual items that got some press time. So while it might be possible to mention events it would need to be handled as not authoritative and avoid doing OR SYNTH to portray it as an overall picture. In particular it should not state things as 'medical professionals', as it is false to portray a fringe group doing something typically regarded as unethical as the only such as if they were the WP:MEDRS community authority. So Consensus #21 should be in place as a control should a para be included. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:24, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

  No, nobody is "asking for carte blanche". That argument appears to assume that a Support !vote means "I support a paragraph no matter what it says." That is not the case; rather, an Oppose !vote means "I oppose a paragraph no matter what it says." If you don't oppose a paragraph no matter what it says, your !vote here is Support (or abstain). ―Mandruss ☎ 03:12, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose The Goldwater rule prevents mental health professionals commenting on potential diagnoses of politicians and other people whom they have not personally examined, specifically the American Psychiatric Association, in the DSM V, describes such behaviour as unethical. So this clearly places this article into territory that quite substantially violates WP:LIBEL, WP:BLP, WP:NOTSPECULATION and WP:UNDUEWEIGHT.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 02:39, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

"The Goldwater rule prevents mental health professionals commenting on potential diagnoses of politicians and other people whom they have not personally examined..." No it doesn't. Not even remotely. I think you should read the article you linked there and that for the American Psychiatric Association. The APA is an at-will organization: a psychiatrist does not need to be a member, and they are certainly not beholden to its ethical standards except where those standards overlap with the regulations and rules of professional conduct of the state or licensing authority they practice within/under. And even if the GOldwater rule did bind all psychiatric experts, it still wouldn't apply to us and whether we could cite anyone violating it.

"So this clearly places this article into territory that quite substantially violates WP:LIBEL..." No it doesn't. Not even remotely. In order for WP:LIBEL to apply, a claim must be, y'know, libel. Under well-established Supreme Court jurisprudence, the U.S. constitution provides strong free speech protections for statements made about a public official: the party sued for libel must have operated with actual malice in order for the action to have merit, among various other requirements that I won't bog the talk page down with. But suffice it to say, this is not even in the same universe as libel.

"...WP:BLP..." Not really: BLP only requires us to show an extra level of care when evaluating the WP:Verification of statements. It does not require us to omit critical observations of the article's subject.

"...WP:NOTSPECULATION..." No it doesn't. Not even remotely. WP:NOTSPECULATION has absolutely nothing to do with the speculation of WP:Reliable sources: every day across thousands of articles on this project, we add statements from experts that are speculative in nature. WP:NOTSPECULATION is just another piped shortcut to WP:CRYSTAL, saying we can't guess at which topics will become notable. It has no relevance to the issue we are discussing here.

"...and WP:UNDUEWEIGHT." This one is a little more subjective, but I daresay it's irrelevant as well. We have dozens of sources which have advanced perspectives on this topic. Seems pretty WP:DUE to me at some level. Of course, we can't make a concrete determination of whether something is due for inclusion and sufficiently sourced until we have a more specific idea of the text being proposed. And as I note above, that should be done with extreme care and an effort towards securing a broad consensus before anything is added. But some degree of discussion of this topic is certainly due, given the number of sources. Snow 05:38, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, yes my use of the word “prevent” should not be interpreted to literal extremes. Breaking the Goldwater rule or guidance will not result in the death penalty for said psychiatrists and their careers will likely still be there for them the next day. As for libel and actual malice, well okay, no one can tell what is going on in the minds of the psychiatrists making those statements so yeah hard to argue a case for libel here perhaps. As for the rest of what you wrote: we obviously have a difference of opinion and my oppose still stands because sources on this topic are highly speculative, undue and break BLP.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 05:50, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, as you say, we are in considerable disagreement over those points and whether or not the policies in question even apply. Nevertheless, I appreciate your very civil response, even though I disagreed with you at length in that post. On talk pages charged by contentious issues, there is always some worry that such posts will be received in the wrong light, so it is always nice when the response is measured, even if we don't immediately come to a meeting of the minds as to all points. Snow 21:44, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose: A psychiatrist's diagnosis of an individual they've never personally examined is sometimes colloquially called an "armchair diagnosis." The APA, which is the largest and most authoritative group of psychiatrists in the world, considers such diagnoses to be unethical and unreliable. ]. While it true that not all psychiatrists are members of the APA, it is nevertheless the preeminent organization for psychiatrists -- and, perhaps most importantly, there is NO association of psychologists or psychiatrists that have put their stamp of approval on armchair diagnoses. Therefore, idea that such diagnoses are valid constitutes a fringe theory that has no place in Misplaced Pages as per WP:DUE. It does not matter if Trump "opened the door", so to speak, by calling himself a "stable genius." (If a Misplaced Pages article says that the world is round, does that "open the door" to a thorough discussion of Flat Earth theory? Absolutely not.) On top of that, there are serious BLP concerns associated with using such a pseudoscience in an article about a living person. There's really no reason why this should be included at all. Even if you could muster some RS reporting on it, and even if there are a group of individuals who claim it, the policies WP:DUE and WP:BLP are not overriden. Cosmic Sans (talk) 13:39, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

  @Cosmic Sans: - you have misrepresented WP:DUE, which is about the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. It's not about idea that such diagnoses are valid constitutes a fringe theory that has no place in Misplaced Pages. starship.paint (talk) 14:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

  @Starship.paint: - Hi, Starship - DUE does refer to WP:FRINGE and I think should be taken as a whole. The question is, what weight is due to a fringe theory that remains unaccepted by mainstream science? The answer is: not much. Perhaps a passing mention is appropriate along with the disclaimer that no psychiatric organization considers this valid. Cosmic Sans (talk) 15:10, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

  @Cosmic Sans: - hello, your ping didn't work. WP:DUE links to WP:FRINGE, but in the sense that (as written on WP:DUE) we want to avoid viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority or a theory that few or none currently believe. Are you arguing that these mental health views of Donald Trump are views of an insignificant minority? starship.paint (talk) 15:30, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

  @Starship.paint: Let me know if this ping works. Anyway, the idea that an "armchair diagnosis" can be valid is held by an extremely small minority. Can you point me to any major organization that believes this is a valid method of diagnosis? As far as I can tell, there are none, and in fact the major organizations consider this to be invalid and unethical. Cosmic Sans (talk) 15:35, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

  @Cosmic Sans: - no, your ping didn't work again, but I don't know why, you seemed to have done everything right. (1) American Psychoanalytic Association leading psychiatry group has told its members they should not feel bound by a longstanding rule against commenting publicly on the mental state of public figures — even the president. (2) American Psychological Association “prefers” that its members not offer opinions on the psychology of someone they have not examined, it does not have a Goldwater rule and is not considering implementing one, an official told STAT. (3) Additionally, No other medical specialty has such a rule; cardiologists are not prohibited from offering their views of an official’s fainting spell, for instance, as long as they make clear that they have not examined the person. (4) opposition to the Goldwater rule has existed for years. starship.paint (talk) 15:51, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

  I'm not sure about the pings either. Anyway, the APASA rebutted the article you linked. In their words, "In an email to association members, our leadership did not encourage members to defy the “Goldwater Rule” which is a part of the ethics code of a different mental health organization, the American Psychiatric Association (APA)."]. But that's somewhat beside the point, because there is no organization saying that these armchair diagnoses can be accurate. I think it's very important to state, so I'll put it in bold: we can't conflate the "Goldwater" issue of whether such a viewpoint should be published, with the Misplaced Pages WP:DUE/WP:FRINGE issue of whether such a thing is considered a reliable and scientific viewpoint. And there's no major organization saying that this is a scientifically reliable thing to do. That's really the important part. The Goldwater Rule is related, but it's an aside because it's primarily concerned with whether something should be published or not. My problem is that no scientific organization has said that these armchair diagnoses are valid, and in fact, have condemned the reliability of those diagnoses. This is an entirely different issue as some internal code of disciplinary conduct where they would sanction members for engaging in that discussion. Cosmic Sans (talk) 17:14, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - For a veriety of reasons mentioned above. WP:BLP being the core but in that umbrella WP:BLPGOSSIP particularly. In a lot of these cases it is largely being presented as true even though it is impossible for them to say for sure that it is. That is because NONE of the people opining about his mental health have actually examined him. This goes back to the goldwater rule. I note above people are trying to refute that it applies here. That is technically true, but in practice horribly horribly wrong. The core of the argument of the goldwater rule is that it is unethical to diagnose someone without examining them. Why would we rely on the opinion of people not acting ethically? PackMecEng (talk) 14:57, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

RfC Discussion

• I’ve always argued against this. But, how long can you ignore an elephant when there exist so many specialists in large, herbivorous mammals raising their hands? I’ve switched to leaning toward inclusion for now and await arguments. O3000 (talk) 01:10, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
• @MelanieN: I don't think this was intentional but obviously the formulation of the RfC is misleading. The issue is not simply whether there should be any mention of his mental health, but the extent to which it is discussed. The concern is with the particular paragraph that is currently there. It would be quite awful if we resolved that mental health should be mentioned, and that result was used to justify opposing any significant change. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:19, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

123, I purposely made this RfC be just about whether to say anything on the subject, not about the wording- with the understanding that actual text should and will be discussed only if the decision is to include anything at all on the subject. There appears to be significant disagreement about that, and there's no point in arguing about content if there isn't going to be any content. IMO if this RfC was about not just whether to say something, but also what to say, it would go in six or seven different directions and be impossible to come to any conclusion. In this format, someone can say "I support including something, but not the paragraph which is currently there" or "I support this only if it says such-and-such and doesn't say so-and-so." If it turns out that consensus is not to include anything at all, we will have saved ourselves a lot of arguing about the exact content - and if the result is to include, there can and should be discussion about the actual wording. Possibly even a second RfC about the wording, if we can't reach consensus on our own. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:44, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

User:MelanieN What *is* the subject already came up -- e.g. 'stupidity' is not mental health. If it's just a para about mental health then ... we can say he passed the cognition test, and mention the conflicting diagnosis offered in The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump, but other items are not included. Markbassett (talk) 03:02, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

• • It should also be noted that a decision made today can not be binding on future events, for example, if future determinations are made about the subject's mental health. bd2412 T 01:34, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
• My objection was the way the mental health claims were presented. Trump certainly has narcissistic tendencies but most experts would not support the claim that he has NPD. TFD (talk) 01:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

No? Check out the defining characteristics. Sound familiar? -- MelanieN (talk) 22:14, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

• User:MelanieN I don't think an empty consensus really can help anything or even be much of a real consensus. It would have been better to do RFC with something about the nature of what the para is to be or some guiding limits -- some of the actual topics up in dispute before.
  • Limit/Not limit it to generic summary of existence on such concerns being stated
  • Include/exclude naming specific conditions and/or name the behaviour but do not make a diagnosis to specific mental disease
  • Include/exclude opinions of mental health professionals who have not examined him, e.g. by name and/or quote
  • Include/exclude opinions of non-medical individuals, e.g. prominent instances with name and/or quote
  • Include/exclude specific mention of book(s) The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump and/or caveats the book states or opponents state
  • Include/exclude specific mention of online petition(s), e.g. by source and/or quotes
  • Include/exclude general responses by Trump, e.g. with/without quote
  • Include/exclude any specific review/criticism of opinions by third parties
  • Any other specific actions or guidance

  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:30, 18 July 2019 (UTC)*

  There is nothing wrong with a simple include paragraph/omit paragraph !vote. If the result is omit paragraph we needn't discuss specifics, so doing so at this juncture might be said to put a cart before its horse. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

  No, the unspecific nature is an issue. Without saying otherwise what 'mental health' is --- this consensus would then only refer to a paragraph of statements by medical professionals. Anything else - such as intelligence or memory -- have already been up as just not 'mental health'. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:55, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

  You are completely misreading and misrepresenting the situation of this RfC. See my reply in the preceding section. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:18, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

• My main objection, as stated in my vote, is that "armchair diagnoses" are generally agreed to be unethical and unreliable and are therefore a fringe theory that should be excluded as per WP:DUE. The BLP concerns only amplify those issues. Cosmic Sans (talk) 13:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

• Trump is an onerous person, but it is inappropriate to turn speculations into statements regarding his mental health. On the other hand, it is an objective fact that Trump critics have frequently alleged mental health issues in highly circulated publications. (For example, since they don't have a staff psychiatrist who has treated Trump, the New York Times is not a reliable source on Trump's mental health but a high profile publication containing allegations.) So any paragraph (by which I mean no more than two sentences) regarding the mental health allegations surrounding Trump should be framed in the context of "critics of Trump have speculated about his having mental health issues" with a couple citations (not five to twenty).

Regarding the existing paragraph, it should be dramatically pruned. Only the first and third sentences (regarding the petition) should be kept, but change the source of first sentence to include the other sources citing experts. All other sentences are loaded with UNDUE weight, including the Trump's claims about his own great mental health. Two sentences are more than enough to point out the questions raised and how they have influenced the political arena.--Saranoon (talk) 14:59, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I live in a town where homeless people walk down the street talking to themselves..it doesn`t take a psychiatrist to know they are mentally ill..I understand that those who oppose inclusion are not going to let it in without citation..that doesn`t make it less relevant..needs to be researched expanded and included (talk) 15:56, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

• I think the focus on the "Goldwater Rule" is missing the mark somewhat. The Goldwater Rule is a rule about publication. While it binds members of the APA, it does not bind Misplaced Pages. What does bind Misplaced Pages, though, is the fact that these armchair diagnoses are generally considered to be medically and scientifically unreliable. That is to say, the objection is not "the Goldwater Rule says you shouldn't do it" but rather that "it is not scientifically valid." The Goldwater Rule came about because these armchair diagnoses are scientifically questionable. It's not that they're scientifically questionable because the Goldwater Rule came about. It may seem like a minor distinction, but it's relevant to us because WP:DUE/WP:FRINGE instructs us not to allocate a significant deal of space to a fringe theory. Which is exactly what this is. The idea that an individual can be reliably diagnosed by someone who has never examined them is not a mainstream idea. There may be an internal debate within some organizations as to whether people should be allowed to express those opinions, but that's not the same debate as whether these opinions carry scientific validity to them. As of yet, nobody has produced a source claiming that these kind of diagnoses have scientific authority. Cosmic Sans (talk) 17:22, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Over 40,000 mental health professionals had, by April 2017, signed a petition stating that:

"My professional judgement is that Donald Trump manifests a serious mental illness that renders him psychologically incapable of competently discharging the duties of President of the United States. And I respectfully request him be removed from office, according to article 3 of the 25th Amendment."

It would, therefore, be a disservice to history for an encyclopedia to entirely overlook the issue, though I believe, like all things WP, that such inclusion should be stated in a concise and strictly factual way, supporting a WP:NPOV, with good sources included. Psychology Today published a fairly balanced discussion on it in March (https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/5-types-people-who-can-ruin-your-life/201903/malignant-narcissism-does-the-president-really), and scores of scholarly books are published on the subject (as a simple Google search of "Trump + Narcissism + PhD", and other variations, easily reveals), including such as Rocket Man: Nuclear Madness and the Mind of Donald Trump (2018), by veteran Johns Hopkins University Medical School psychology professor John Gartner, author of the 2017 petition. I'd say that scientific authorities are speaking loud and clear on the topic. Lindenfall (talk) 19:30, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

The "40,000 signatures" were from an online petition. There appears to be no verification that any of the people who signed the petition are actually mental health professionals. Otherwise, a handful of sensationalist books is not enough to counteract the clear scientific consensus that armchair diagnoses are not accurate. Cosmic Sans (talk) 20:12, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Cosmic Sans Firstly, the bottom line here has nothing to do with armchair diagnoses, which are inarguably unfit for WP, but addresses the fact of the U.S. president's apparant mental health being widely discussed and studied by professionals, based upon his actions and utterances — specific diagnosis is not the the true topic, and is not germane to the inclusion. Secondly, You are implying that Dr. Gartner, a widely respected psychotherapist and mental health authority, may have misled Chuck Schumer regarding the credentials of the petition's signees, who were each required to include their degree credentials upon signing, when he submitted it to the New York Senator, in 2017. (Psychology Today appears not to discount the petition's signees. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-time-cure/201702/the-elephant-in-the-room?page=2). Thirdly, you undermine your own position in referencing, not a mere "handful", but a small, yet potent, library of contemporary works by noted MD's and PhD's as "sensationalist"... whereas that is the scientific community weighing in. Obviously, a diagnosis of any kind cannot be asserted as fact. Equally obvious is that the issue is major and notable, and so should be referenced — no mention is a whitewash of history. The mere existence of a book such as The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 37 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President on the New York Times bestsellers list speaks volumes on the topic's notability. Lindenfall (talk) 20:59, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Discussion about the Goldwater Rule

• I see a lot of people arguing that "we can't use armchair diagnosis, only someone who has actually examined the patient". That is the Goldwater Rule. What that leaves out is that someone who HAS examined the person would not be able to say anything either, because of the HIPAA privacy rule. By this logic, you can't say anything if you haven't examined him, and you can't say anything if you HAVE examined him, and basically all professionals are banned from ever saying anything, no matter their expertise or the source of their information. That makes no sense. The truth is that multiple in-depth interviews with a person are no longer considered the only way to evaluate their mental health. Their behavior and what they say can and does reveal a great deal to a trained professional. As for the argument that "memory" doesn't count as mental health - of course it does. Memory, or memory loss, is a prime symptom of Alzheimer's or other dementia. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:46, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

• • Actually MelanieN, you just presented an excellent argument for why we should oppose inclusion. There is a reason for HIPAA and the Goldwater Rule, and we, as editors of an encyclopedia, should not be judging or offering our own diagnoses in support of unethical ones simply because we agree with them. We should be using editorial discretion with a measure of human decency. _Talk 📧 00:02, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) That is kind of the thing. It was brought up above I hope that you will be consistent and nominate articles like Mental health of Jesus for deletion, must have been very unethical of all these scholars to examine Jesus. which is of course a silly argument. But that is a similar argument you are using. There is a difference if the subject is alive or not when making credible diagnoses and even then they are taken with a grain of salt since they are not reliable. You mention basically all professionals are banned from ever saying anything, no matter their expertise or the source of their information an answer to that is "yeah so what?". Better care should be taken about BLPs in general and this is a prime example of why. PackMecEng (talk) 00:05, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

• The Goldwater rule is completely irrelevant. We follow WP:RS and WP:NPOV. There are numerous cases when experts evaluated mental health of politicians and historical figures based on their words, behavior and facts. If that was reliably published in multiple RS and the person was significant, that belongs to encyclopedia. My very best wishes (talk) 00:17, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

(Further to MelanieN's last comment) One also can't call the president a racist, no matter his verbiage, in Congress; there's a rule against it, we all recently learned, along with Nancy Pelosi. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/07/17/nancy-pelosi-was-rebuked-calling-trumps-tweets-racist-she-can-thank-thomas-jefferson-brits/?utm_term=.e891b2c9c838) Nonetheless, any publication can report the full story of how that came to be, or how it came to be in the news of the day. It only stands to reason that Misplaced Pages can, and should, include any widespread controversy, including the one over his mental health, diagnoses notwithstanding.

Diagnoses is beside the point of inclusion. Despite not requiring a diagnosis to include the controversy, might I also draw attention to this List of mentally ill monarchs, which has garnered no opponents for its many armchair diagnoses? Perhaps because they (too), are based on the opinions of scholars regarding the history of each individual's words and deeds. Lindenfall (talk) 00:23, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

• Whatever rules might exist in US Congress, they are irrelevant to our content policies, just as the Goldwater rule. We say what reliable sources say on the subject. Yes, if many scholars say something regarding an individual, we just say the same. This is reference work. My very best wishes (talk) 00:34, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

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