Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:35, 21 May 2018

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) Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page 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!

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 Trump presidency, 2018 Q2 List of presidential trips made by Donald Trump Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections Donald Trump on social media …or dozens of other places, as listed in {{Donald Trump series}}. Thanks!

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

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

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 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating 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 Template:Vital article

Other talk page banners

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. This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Pstein92. This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): LittleRobbinBird (article contribs).

	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 Current status: Former good article nominee

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.

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.

Open RfCs and surveys

• #Should we mention the Forbes 400 tapes in the 'wealth' section of the article?
• #North Korea in lead

• 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)

Should we mention the Forbes 400 tapes in the 'wealth' section of the article?

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: Politics, government, and law Biographies 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.

Since it seems like everyone has presented their arguments and there are requests for an RFC... this discussion led to debates over whether we should include this edit, which covers tapes by reporter Jonathan Greenberg that he says shows Trump lying in order to get on the Forbes 400 list. The main argument seems to be over whether the topic is WP:DUE (and, therefore, whether it would be a WP:BALANCE issue to include or exclude it.

Some relevant sources: , the initial article; secondary coverage in these: --Aquillion (talk) 04:12, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• Include as proposer. The heavy coverage more than adequately demonstrates that a single sentence devoted to this is not WP:UNDUE; beyond that, we already mention that Trump was on this list, and covering that without at least noting a high-profile controversy related to that inclusion is clearly a WP:BALANCE issue. The existence of the tapes is not in doubt (Greenberg has produced them), and their interpretation with regards to Trump lying about his wealth to get on the Forbes 400 does not seem to be particularly controversial, in the sense that no sources have contradicted Greenberg's interpretations and several have unambiguously reported it as fact. This is a high-profile controversy related to Trump's wealth that must be mentioned in the appropriate section of this article to ensure proper balance with the (sometimes primary-sourced) figures already there. --Aquillion (talk) 04:12, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
• Include per what I said above. Notable controversy, there isn't a "old stuff" relating to events 30 years ago clause in NPOV for disinclusion, and by the same token would disinclude all his old net worths. As Aquillon says, noting that he is on the list without the doubts/controversies associated is contrary to NPOV, representing all the significant viewpoints there. We should also include all the other doubts about Forbes's figures, which we currently present without comment. E.g, in 1982 his net worth was actually 5 million$ not 100 million$, according to this same article. Doubts about forbes figures were also reported in the 2005 nytimes source which we use the in the article. There is also a lot more coverage about his..very high, ludricuous..claims, as in Trump Revealed, "Yet his claims were questioned, time and again.". We do include the claims, but not how they are questioned - we mostly present the point of view of that of forbes estimates and himself without all the questions about them. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:11, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
• Include This should be included we but only if we keep it an appropriate size and mention that it is just an allegation so far. --Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 11:05, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
• Include - as noted earlier => definitely of public interest and reliably sourced - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:30, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
• Include: WP:RS. Would be a WP:POV decision not to include.Casprings (talk) 01:02, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
• Include The proposer's first sentence hits the nail on the head. Greg L (talk) 07:12, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude - edited audio tapes, no proof of dates or authenticity, purportedly dating back 36 34 years when the reporter was in his early 20s. He was an ex-writer for Forbes, so I guess he moved up the ladder 40 years later to become a blogger for HuffPo? Nah. It's just another allegation scraped up from the bottom of the barrel. It has no encyclopedic value.  03:26, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, can you at least provide a reliable source to back up the claim that these audio tapes have been edited in misleading way? (Also not sure what the reporter's age has to do with anything) Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:25, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Sound editorial judgment is all that's required - tape 1 clearly isn't the full conversation - it's a 1:47 sound bite - no proof of who called whom, there's no recorded date only Greenberg's word, no way to confirm what the conversation was actually about much less in what context it was taken, it ended as abruptly as it began. The same with the 2nd tape - a 1:07 sound bite - all you know is what Greenberg reported. As for Greenberg's age - he brought it up in the WaPo article: I was a determined 25-year-old reporter, and I thought that, by reeling Trump back from some of his more outrageous claims, I’d done a public service and exposed the truth. I must've missed his exposé while reading his online resumé. In the WaPo report he claims innocence - that he and his Forbes colleagues thought of it as "vain embellishments on the truth"...until 34+/- years later? Meh! And where does his story show up? Front page? No - it's in a Perspective column (opinion piece) that WaPo defines as: Discussion of news topics with a point of view, including narratives by individuals regarding their own experiences. Poorly sourced for contentious material about a BLP (circular reporting counts as one source, and the opinion piece is the primary). He's barely getting any baitclick mileage out of it in the anti-Trump markets - zero lasting encyclopedic value - poof, the buzz is already gone. 03:14, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

OK. So, razor sharp acumen and unassailable logic of some select wikipedians could be used when the RSs don’t seem to catch on to these drop-dead obvious truths, Atsme. I suppose I might be able to go along with that. Moreover, your proposal seems to actually embrace the last of Misplaced Pages’s Five Pillars (Misplaced Pages has no firm rules), though this concept of yours seems to run afoul with the second Pillar (pertaining to citing reliable, authoritative sources) as flawed as the RSs can be at times. Greg L (talk) 04:15, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

As long as observers realize that my razor sharp acumen and logic is also supported by policy including NOTNEWS, V and NPOV, and the guideline that defines RS. 21:41, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

• Include - notable and reliably sourced. Also, including the fact that he was on the list, while deliberately ignoring the controversy about how he got there is a pretty clear violation of WP:NPOV.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:25, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

So you think this comment should be included because an ex-Forbes reporter is a more reliable source than the President of the United States? Brian Everlasting (talk) 05:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)g

That is a terrible argument, on multiple counts. 1. We're not excluding Trump's viewpoint, nor saying that the report is more reliable than POTUS (strawman), but merely including all significant viewpoints per NPOV 2. Trump's history of exaggeration and falsehoods is well documented and yuge. The ex-forbes reporter, meanwhile, is a investigative journalist who would be fired if he repeatedly lied etc Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:08, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• Exclude. This seems extremely trivial. Everyone already knows that Trump puffs himself up at every opportunity. His buildings are the greatest, his TV ratings are the highest, his poll numbers are the best, etc. This is just more of the same thing. This is useless trivia at best. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Isn't the fact that it is so common mean we have to address it in his biography? Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:12, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• Include - notable and reliably sourced. Trump's primary claim regarding his qualifications for becoming president was that his wealth was proof of his competency. Each and every lie he told that is subsequently exposed is therefore notable. 71.46.56.59 (talk) 07:11, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• Exclude - trivia lightly covered tabloid piece, simply not a major action by Trump or significant effect to his life that would make it suitable for BLP. Out of 10 M google for trump I got 39 on this and they mostly seem listed above. Most of those cites are tabloids or unknowns -- skipping past all those kgw, zeenews india, gq, esquire, ktla, hugoobserver, uproxx, pasemagazine, ... whats left? Seems a USAtoday CNN and CNBS is all thats left, 'Greenberg says in a 20 April WaPo piece', so apparently not significant effect or coverage. Markbassett (talk) 00:56, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: We should be nice to Donald Trump because if he likes what he reads about himself on Misplaced Pages, he will be more likely to be nice to Misplaced Pages. Therefore I believe this unreliable personal attack on Donald Trump should be strong exclude. This unreliable personal attack accomplishes nothing. Brian Everlasting (talk) 04:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I can't tell if this comment is meant as a joke or not.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:24, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I wouldn't include it in the form presented in Special:Diff/837621017, but I'd support including it as a caveat to the sentence He appeared on the initial Forbes 400 list of wealthy individuals in 1982 with an estimated $200 million fortune, including an "undefined" share of his parents' estate. The WaPo reference claims that he was reported to have a $100 million fortune at that time. The NYTimes reference says Forbes gave him an undefined share of a family fortune that the magazine estimated at $200 million. The fact that Trump attempted to inflate his reported wealth in Forbes magazine shouldn't be controversial, and if we're including those numbers, we should mention it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:56, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd say the tapes are relevant but there are other portions even more relevant, as you say, as a caveat. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:36, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• Exclude 30+ old allegations are encyclopedic or relevant to this article. Sovietmessiah (talk) 00:33, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
• Include. Obviously good content about a notable situation. Properly sourced documentation of one more of the deceptions he used to create an undeserved reputation. That it reflects poorly on him is not the fault of the sources or editors, but of Trump himself. The fact that it's a combination of deceptive acts makes it even more notable, and not a passing, insignificant, and trivial factoid. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
• Include. Fascinating insight that speaks to the kind of person Trump is. Well-sourced, interesting content that is relevant and notable. What's not to love? -- Scjessey (talk) 20:50, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
• Include Sources show that it is relevant and notable. LK (talk) 06:51, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude per UNDUE. Secondary coverage only repeats claims from the original reporting. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:08, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Thereby proving it's worth mentioning... Drmies (talk) 04:34, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude as this isn't suppose to be a tabloid newspaper. GoodDay (talk) 02:42, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• Could you explain the relevance of that statement to the sourcing and significance of this content? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 02:53, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• Include This content is well-referenced and the fact that the incident is 30 years old is actually a good thing for a BLP prone to problems of recentism. Cullen Let's discuss it 04:32, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
• Include Heavy coverage in RS. Puts the net worth claims already in the article in context. Certainly doesn’t run afoul of recentism/notnews. O3000 (talk) 10:31, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude – Undue old story, apparently unearthed only to smear the BLP subject. Who cares how rich he ever pretended to be? I remember him stating his net worth was "over 10 billion dollars" when he started his campaign. The whole world laughed it off, and professional estimates oscillated between 3 and 4.5 billion. I guess that's "over 10 billion" in typical Trump-speak… — JFG 10:46, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
• Include. Properly sourced documentation of one more of the deceptions he used to create an undeserved reputation. That it reflects poorly on him is not the fault of the sources or editors, but of Trump himself. The fact that it's a combination of deceptive acts makes it even more notable, and not a passing, insignificant, and trivial factoid. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:03, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: You already voted above, on May 2nd here. You should strike one of your votes. PackMecEng (talk) 14:07, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:11, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• Include in this article, or add in here or here. However, the place in the main article in an ideal place to put it. I change my !vote for exclude to include. Emass100 (talk) 03:21, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• But in that case, how do we let readers know that the wealth figure in this article is a fabrication? SPECIFICO talk 03:27, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• If you are referring to the wealth figure he fabricated 30 years ago, I think it is not important that it be included in the main article. Emass100 (talk) 03:36, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• There's no factual basis for any of the estimates of his wealth. What do you suggest? I would be OK just omitting any estimate of his wealth from all the articles or any other articles where the wealth is privately held and unverifiable. SPECIFICO talk 03:47, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• (Summoned by bot) Exclude as presented. The edit made was deceptive, as its location and wording imply that the ranking he manipulated is the current one when it's actually one from 30 years ago. The information, however, is not unwarranted. I could support something more along the lines of Power~enwiki's proposal, which would be useful for establishing some context to disputes over his exact wealth. —Compassionate727  14:35, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
• Include, preferably in the False statements section. Another important whopper that precedes his presidential tenure. He lied – both as himself and as the fictitious "John Barron" – to get on the list and then lied to the banks with the list as proof of his creditworthyness? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:30, 19 May 2018 (UTC) And a sentence to the Wealth section, citing Greenberg's WaPO article, e.g.: He appeared on the initial Forbes 400 a list of wealthy individuals in 1982 with an estimated $100 million fortune; for real estate wealth, the list "relied disproportionately on what people told" Forbes because most of the relevant records were not public. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:44, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
• Comment if I analyze this by the main purpose of why Misplaced Pages exists and its policies, indeed, we have a WP:POV issue if RS are ignored. Yet, we all know how news like these spread and this is a topic many newspapers we trust would pick up easily. Robertgombos (talk) 07:54, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: The challenge resulting in removal said that it was "WaPo opinion piece (including 2 other sources citing that same piece) by ex-employee of Forbes...UNDUE, poorly sourced." It is not an opinion when a reporter reports what happened to him in 1982 and has tapes to back up his story. However, another journalist, Timothy L. O’Brien, had already reported 13 years earlier - without naming anyone on Forbes staff - that Trump had bamboozled Forbes into putting him on the lists from the very first one published in 1982 and on through 2004. Trump sued O’Brien for $5 billion for defaming him by contradicting Trump’s claims of being a multi-billionaire. After he lost, he appealed the case and lost the appeal, (too). Also, Forbes has admitted that people have lied to them about their wealth "occasionally" while a Forbes editor said in an interview that it was "not unusual to catch billionaires lying about their net worth — and Trump has a long history of exaggerating his numbers". Since the Forbes 400 figures prominently in the Wealth section, I think the text and the reliable sources I added under the subheading are WP:DUE. Greenberg’s article is merely additional confirmation of stuff other journalists found out years ago, so also WP:DUE. I just added a subsection to Wealth and used Greenberg's recent report as additional confirmation of O'Brien and other sources' reporting. I don't believe that that's a violation of the active arbitration remedies. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:48, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - insignificant details based on he said-she said allegations over inclusion on the Forbes list is just plain silly and UNDUE. If memory serves, they had just started that list so it's not issues with a new anything is not unusual. Summaries of major issues/accomplishments are what belongs in the article, not the details of an insignificant alleged screw-up by Forbes. What we need requires long-lasting encyclopedic value, verifiable statements of fact in high quality sources...(1) the alleged Forbes screw-up fails in that regard; (2) Space, we currently have 86 kB (14003 words) "readable prose size", and the material you added made it 88 kB (14244 words) "readable prose size". Considering WP:Article size suggests > 60 kB Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material) and that >100 kB almost certainly should be divided we should be trimming this article to make room for the important summaries of his life, not all the little details and after-the-fact he said-she said allegations which are so obviously UNDUE. 17:28, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

@Atsme: All of that stuff provides important context. The fact is, the most notable fact of Trump's entire life is that he is a person who exaggerates his wealth, his sexual prowess (and related organs), his importance, his crowd sizes, his effectiveness, the size of his hands, the height of his buildings, and a whole host of other things. In fact, using UNDUE as an argument against inclusion is so deliciously ironic it made me laugh out loud. Anyway, this discussion is nearing its scheduled end with a significant majority of editors in favor of inclusion. I would prefer nobody edits (either to add or remove) content until the discussion has been closed. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:08, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Understood, but the Wealth section was not well-written and it did not reflect what the sources say. I fixed some of it - cited the NYTimes article which included their analysis of the actual required financial disclosure that Trump submitted, not the "predicted one". I fixed the Forbes statement and why they actually reduced their evaluation. I think you'll find that it reflects what the sources actually say, and flows a little better. We really don't have to tell readers that he exaggerates - the sources do that for us if you'll let them. Read the paragraph and you'll see what I mean. It is better not to beat our readers over the head with a specific POV, just report the facts and they'll get the message loud and clear - that's what I've tried to explain from the beginning...and I do hope one day y'all will find that my copyedit skills are an asset, not a liability. 19:38, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Nobody should be editing a section currently under discussion, and particularly a section that has been "challenged" by editors, regardless of how much of an "asset" any editor thinks they are. You're making content changes, not just innocently copyediting. Please stop and self revert. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Scjessey, what I did was copyedit material that was already there, which has nothing to do with adding those potentially "edited" tapes to that section which is what this survey is about. If you still don't understand how DS sanctions work, ask an admin to clarify it for you. Your Nobody outburst was unwarranted, and foolish. I suggest striking your comment because it comes across as BATTLEGROUND when I was trying to have a meaningful discussion with you. 22:34, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• Include - The article already discusses Trump's wealth and Forbes 400 status, so it would be absurd to omit this aspect, which is supported by numerous sources. In fact, the mere 24 words proposed is probably insufficient considering how it relates to the overall theme of Trump's character.- MrX 🖋 20:59, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
• Include no more than a single cited sentence. Any more weight given to this factoid would be undue. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:52, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Doc Bornstein's office raided. Admits he didn't write health report

An example of how a lie by Trump shows up under another more credible person's name.

Does anybody here believe that Doc Ronny Jackson actually weighed Trump or administered the Montreal test? SPECIFICO talk 02:03, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

So the doctor is admitting that he lied the first time, and we're supposed to believe that he's not lying now? 😂 Let it incubate. 🐓🥚🍳 02:25, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, funny how not being under Trump's thumb allows more honesty. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:08, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Maggie Haberman: "The dictation is abnormal, a doctor agreeing to it is abnormal and a doctor talking about it is abnormal." Twitter -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:08, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh, my - here we go...CNN The person familiar with the episode described altogether different circumstances, saying the handover had been completed peacefully, complicated only by Bornstein's fumbling with his photocopy machine to make copies of the records.. Please, let the breaking news incubate 🐣. 20:53, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for posting this. The anti-Trump bias here is getting old. Sovietmessiah (talk) 01:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

@Sovietmessiah: No kidding. It reminds me of a twist on a line from The Piano Man: ♬ “And the wikipedians are practicing politics, as the RSs slowly get stoned…”♬ We might soon need a subpage for how Trump was responsible for faking the Apollo moon landings on a sound stage. Greg L (talk) 03:07, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

No IReliable Source has challenged that Jackson did the tests he said he did. Your skepticism is pure opinion and Original Research. As for Bornstein, he has done himself no favors in the credibility department by his changing stories. Anything he says should be attributed to him, and if others challenge what he says, that should also be included. --MelanieN (talk) 01:59, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

It's only OR if it goes in the article. Otherwise, it's "obvious." SPECIFICO talk 03:21, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

User:SPECIFICO - you seem to have confused Bornstein with some fantasy about Jackson. Yes, most folks do believe Jackson weighed Trump and did a cognitive test. Rumors of Trump having health issues in late 2017 is sort of like the fad of Hillary being unfit due to health in late 2016. (Silly bits about her needing pillows to sit upright, stumbling, an actual head knock exaggerated, a real collapse from hiding pneumonia.) Seems just clickbait and partisan pitching doubt or distractions, but hey it's what the niche markets like so Limbaugh sold it one year and Maddow sold it the other way the following year. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:32, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Forcing Bornstein to hand over original of medical records. CNN's source, "the person familiar with the episode", actually confirms the basics of Bornstein's description of the incident: Three people with a letter, i.e., not the usual medical records release form, showed up unannounced and asked for the records, and - when a flustered Bornstein was unable to photocopy them in the next 20 minutes - Schiller (who's what - 6 ft. 5 or 6? and at the time was representing the President of the United States and accompanied by Trump Organization VP and Chief Legal Officer Alan Garten and an unknown "large man") told him to hand over the originals. The originals are the physician's property and responsibility, and coercing him to hand them over now is dictator style and not the standard operating procedure of the White House Medical Unit, as Sanders claimed (although - these days - who knows). Seems relevant enough to go into either this article or the one on the Presidency of Donald Trump. Bornstein was wrong for signing the "healthiest president ever" letter, for telling the NYT which medications his patient took, and for not telling Schiller (why was he in NY in the first place?) to come back later or the next day for the copies. However, taking Bornstein's quirky personality and the semantics out of the picture, what we're left with is abuse of power and the WH saying that there was "nothing out of the ordinary". Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I oppose inclusion as noncompliant with NOTNEWS. Leaving Bornstein's quirky personality and the semantics in, exceptional claims require exceptional sources. CNN actually gave more weight to what the source described as a peaceful exchange despite the docs fumbling to make copies. There's also the doctor's admission that he shared privileged medical information about his patient (who happens to be the president of the US) which may have violated state and/or federal laws. I read the speculation in the WaPo opinion (analysis) piece and even it was even qualified with: It may ultimately come to nothing... I oppose inclusion of this incident as breaking news (NOTNEWS). Odd that the doctor waited a year to disclose...but that seems to be a pattern with regards to Trump and people who appear to either hold a grudge after being replaced or may see financial opportunity or other form of personal gain by telling "their" he said/she said story, real or perceived. 14:37, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Dear Atsme, my friend, that's ridiculous! You didn't have any problem with Dr. Ronny Jackson's horsing us about POTUS' weight at the White House presser, right? And what makes you think he weighed POTUS on a scale when every commentator has said that the weight clocked in at 16 oz. shy of "morbidly obese" or whatever the unseemly category is called, and that POTUS was demonstrably a stone or more over his previous borderline reading? I know you like horses, but... SPECIFICO talk 17:36, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

No comparison to what you're wanting to add now which is straight-up flotsam at this point in time, and noncompliant with NOTNEWS. You keep bringing up Trump's health - were you expecting a triathlete? As far as I can tell, he hasn't needed assistance to climb up or down stairs, and he hasn't been carried into the presidential limo, yet. No denying that he likes Big Macs and chocolate shakes...so? I'm not aware of any weight requirement to be president. 01:07, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

1) I have proposed no article text. Oh. 2) The issue is not health, it's lying and coercing others to lie so that ordinary journalistic modes of reporting have failed and are being reassessd by principled reporters who have come to realize they've been too willing to broadcast and amplify misinformation on behalf of POTUS. Did Doc Ronny Jackson "weigh" POTUS - like on a scale with numbers on it? SPECIFICO talk 01:14, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

No, he weighed him on a fish with scales on it. 😉 You mentioned somewhere that you were thinking about leaving political articles and writing fish articles. Good choice! You won't have to deal with NOTNEWS. There are no politician fish but there are surgeon fish, sharks and jellyfish, so it shouldn't be too drastic a change, especially considering some things will continue to smell fishy and you will still have to avoid the flotsam. 01:54, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Nothing odd about it, considering his quirky personality and the fact that the President of the United States of America came down on him with the full force of his authority (and at least two very large men - don't know the size of Garten). Nobody cares about Trump's athleticism or lack thereof (although why did he have to wait for a golf cart ride when all the other heads of state walked 700 yards from one venue to another?); lying about it – or lying about it by omission in interviews etc. – is a different matter, though not as big a deal as the strong-arming. 14 months after the NY Times interview, Bornstein's license hasn't been revoked, and Trump hasn't sued him or even threatened to sue him. Makes me wonder what else was in those files. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 05:47, 5 May 2018 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 05:50, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• Based on what I've seen in the sources I think about a half sentence for the bit about Trump dictating the letter would be reasonable weight. Looking at the info currently in the Health section I'd suggest an edit to the current 2nd paragraph along these lines: During the 2016 presidential campaign Trump's personal physician, Harold Bornstein, released a glowing letter of health, which he later said Trump himself had dictated, praising Trump for extraordinary health, physical strength, and stamina. A second and less hyperbolic medical report from Bornstein showed Trump's blood pressure, liver, and thyroid function to be in normal ranges. On the raid of Bornstein's office I don't know where that would fit in the article and I would hesitate to include it at all without seeing more significant coverage. ~Awilley (talk) 06:39, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Awilley, how about just saying released a letter of good health and if the superlatives must be included, use in-text attribution rather than Wikivoice? I guess folks over 60 may have a tad more appreciation for someone in their golden years to be enjoying good health...but letters don't glow. 😊 15:35, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean about in-text attribution rather than Wikivoice. Do you mean putting quotes around words like "extraordinary"? I think the most notable thing about the letter was how over the top it was (test results were "astonishingly excellent" and he would unequivocally be "the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency" etc.). I'm fine with any wording that conveys that, and I'm definitely not married to "glowing". ~Awilley (talk) 16:30, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Slight edit Alternative B More succinct and making clear that Trump, not the MD, released the letter to the press:

During the 2016 presidential campaign Trump released a hyperbolic and superlative-laden letter signed by his personal physician, Dr. Harold Bornstein, praising Trump for extraordinary health, physical strength, and stamina. In the face of skepticism from the press, Bornstein insisted that he was the author of the letter. In April, 2018, Bornstein stated to the press that Trump had dictated the letter.

SPECIFICO talk 17:02, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Awilley, 1st statement of fact = "His physical strength and stamina are extraordinary,” read the letter, which Bornstein had initially said he wrote himself. 2nd statement of fact (same source) = "He dictated that whole letter. I didn't write that letter," Dr. Harold Bornstein told CNN. "I just made it up as I went along." So which one do we believe, and how much weight do you think is appropriate for this un-encyclopedic rant by an ex-doctor the media has shown to be lying? I only know half of what I see, and it appears to me Trump has a helluva lot more energy than some of my guy friends who are 20 years younger. The article is already full of needless trivia - so who really cares about this insignificant piece of trivia? Jiminy Cricket - what happened to sound editorial judgment? It was newsworthy as a bait-click revenue headline but it's not encyclopedic. It probably has far more relevance on the doctor's BLP rather than here. Trump passed his physical - good to know - what's next? 05:39, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@Atsme, apologies, I'm having trouble following your argument. You say "1st statement of fact = ..." and then say something that is not clearly a fact. Also, I don't think the health of your friends has any relevance here. And are you saying we shouldn't mention the doctor at all? Perhaps you could make a specific proposal for what you think the article should say, or list specific things you'd like the article to say or not say?

@Specifico, That kind of works for me, but I think it places too much emphasis on Bornstein's different stories. The things I think should be conveyed by the two sentences are, roughly in order of importance: 1. Trump's health indicators are normal. 2. Trump wants people to think that he is in astonishingly excellent health. 3. Trump was able to influence his doctor to make absurd claims in an official letter of health. #2 and #3 are best left for the reader to intuit (rather than us stating them explicitly). Also there is no "4: Trump's doctor lied and recanted". Based on this, what would you think about this:

During the 2016 presidential campaign Trump's personal physician, Harold Bornstein, released a superlative-laden letter of health—which he later said Trump himself had dictated—praising Trump for extraordinary health, physical strength, and stamina. A second and less hyperbolic medical report from Bornstein showed Trump's blood pressure, liver, and thyroid function to be in normal ranges.

~Awilley (talk) 16:35, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Good 'un, but what purpose does it serve our readers? Is the purpose to compare what different doctors have said about Trump's health, or is the purpose to inform our readers that 2 different doctor exams have shown him to be in good heath? I say stay away from guessing at what Trump wanted people to think or what the discussion between Trump & his doctor was about. WP should not be analyzing the thoughts of our BLPs, and certainly not based on what Bornstein said. If consensus determines his health exams need to be included, let's throw-in his TV interview with Dr. Oz, the Bornstein results, and of course, White House Physician Ronny Jackson....or we could just add a sentence or two and say medical professionals who examined Trump determined that he was physically fit to serve as president...which is all that really matters anyway. 22:42, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

PS: Awilley apologies for being tardy in clarifying my statements. You stated above: "You say "1st statement of fact = ..." and then say something that is not clearly a fact." The "statement of fact" I was referring to was the fact the letter exists and actually does read: "His physical strength and stamina are extraordinary," - it's verifiable by clicking on the NYTimes link and reading the 1st letter, 12-4-2015. 2nd statement of fact was with reference to the fact that Bornstein's statement was quoted by RS as follows: "He dictated that whole letter. I didn't write that letter," Dr. Harold Bornstein told CNN. "I just made it up as I went along." I am not speaking to the truth of the quote itself, rather I'm referring to its verifiability, initially having been published in a CNN "exclusive" (primary source in this case). 01:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

So, @Awilley: it appears to me that you could put your latest version into the article and we can close this thread out. SPECIFICO talk 16:20, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Support - 17:21, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Deception

Here's a stunner from the Washington Post: It has become standard operating procedure for Trump and his aides to deceive the public with false statements and shifting accounts. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:58, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Restoring this after it was mysteriously "archived" just 10 minutes after it was posted. Perhaps Malerooster can explain? -- Scjessey (talk) 16:25, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I have no clue but WaPo got the story wrong - it is highly misleading and inaccurate - which reminds me of what just happened with this completely inaccurate revelation by NBC & ABC that WaPo responded to by saying: Media mistakes are always bad, but the nature and timing of this one make it particularly unhelpful to the Washington press corps' collective reputation. I hope WaPo takes some time for a bit intraspective themselves. These are instances when I hate having to say "told ya so." Let the breaking news incubate - our policies didn't magically appear without good reason and obvious foresight by highly competent editors. 16:53, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Please explain how the article "got the story wrong." Also, the NBC story wasn't "completely inaccurate", since it correctly noted Cohen's calls were being monitored, and the legal barrier for getting a warrant to do so is no different from getting a full wire tap. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:06, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Read the sources that attempt to explain it: The Hill, CBS, ABC twitter. Common sense and good editorial judgment are still our best friends, especially in light of breaking news miscommunications, misinterpretations, the propensity of some in media to take things out of context, not to rehash the baitclick era, pundits, journalistic opinion and rampant speculation. We have NOTNEWS policy, so when in doubt, leave it out. WP is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper with a deadline or dependency on baitclick revenue. Whatever we include should be credible, quality longterm encyclopedic material. I don't consider a pay-off by a fix-it attorney to rid his client of a nuisance to be in that category. It's gossip, not to mention the fact we already have the forked Stormy Daniels–Donald Trump scandal, now at 2686 B (436 words) "readable prose size". I don't think it deserves more than a paragraph, and actually belongs over at Wikisource and Wikinews. People of wealth and/or fame are usually shielded from such nonsense, real or perceived, so it is not surprising that Trump had no idea what Cohen did until recently. The public is usually the last to learn the truth about such things - not unlike what we recently learned from our trusted media about the sexual harassment sludge-fund to handle lawsuit settlements against our "trusted" politicians...but guess what? Snopes rated the story FALSE under the headline Did Congress Use a ‘Slush Fund’ to Pay $17 Million to Women They Sexually Harassed?. Reading and deciphering such information clearly indicates the need for WP:CIR, and adherence to WP:NOTNEWS. 18:31, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

ok NOW can I archive this? --Malerooster (talk) 23:48, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Per #Current consensus item 13, "manual archival is allowed for closed discussions after 24 hours." This discussion is not closed, let alone for 24 hours. Just leave it be. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:56, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Atsme: Are you deliberately misquoting your own sources? Snopes fact-checked "a meme circulating on social media", and USA today (your "sludge-fund" link) says this: "Even so, all the public knows is that since 1997, Congress has paid more than $17 million to settle scores of workplace claims from a special Treasury Department fund created by the 1995 law. (paragraph break) Whether the claims involved sexual harassment, or discrimination against protected groups, is unknown. So is the identity of lawmakers and aides involved in alleged misbehavior." Incidentally, the "sludge-fund" act, Public Law 104-1, was the first law passed in 1995 by the first Republican-controlled congress since 1954. And how do you know this: People of wealth and/or fame are usually shielded from such nonsense, real or perceived, so it is not surprising that Trump had no idea what Cohen did until recently. OR? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 05:05, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: I just want to make sure you know what happened here, in case you wanted to weigh in. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:45, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• Jesus Christ I posted this 2 days ago and folks are pushing to have it archived? Give me a break. The discussion should not be closed or archived until a clear consensus emerges or the discussion dies out and remains dead for an extended period of time. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:43, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Clear consensus of what exactly? Yes archive this sh*t now. --Malerooster (talk) 22:43, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Using a favorite verb of one of the other editors: Let it incubate to see what will emerge. This may or may not go into the article, in the Public Profile or the Presidency (Personnel or Investigations) section maybe, working title "Getting kneecapped by your own lawyer confirming that you lied repeatedly". Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:55, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Is there a reason why you're so eager to get this archived? Manual archival is completely unnecessary here Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:23, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• Charlton Heston called and said that somebody needs to pry the shovel from Rudy's cold dead hands. Hole's getting deeper: "I’m facing a situation with the president and all the other lawyers are, in which every lawyer in America thinks he would be a fool to testify, I’ve got a client who wants to testify." (NYT) "'I am focused on the law more than the facts right now,' Giuliani said." (CNN) Ah yes, indeedy. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:55, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

In my view, we should consider adding the quote above to Donald Trump#False statements to further bolster the section. The cited source is the work of journalism, rather than an opinion piece, so it is definitely a high-quality reference. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:26, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree, some of the false statements now having been confirmed by Giuliani and Trump himself, e.g., Trump's initial claim that he didn’t know about the hush-money payment to Stormy Daniels, that he didn’t pay Cohen back etc. (Also the logical conclusion that the one-night stand did occur but - meh.) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:46, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

• Is there a reason for "False statements" being a subsection of "Political image"? False statements wouldn’t appear to be a matter of image or perception by the public. I’d like to avoid having to search 78 archives. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:43, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

What I’ve been reading in this section needs a step back - this is an encyclopedia, not Hollywood news. Our responsibility to our readers is to provide encyclopedic information, not a bunch of allegations, speculation and disinformation. Do you really believe America elected this guy based on his past affairs? Most of what we’re reading is he said - she said bs garnished with lots of journalistic ‘’’opinion’’’, the weight of which is pretty obviously the result of his fake news allegations against media. Regardless, all these rumors and petty attacks will eventually be deleted as inconsequential trivia in his overall presidency...not unlike what happened in the Obama & Clinton articles. I was surprised to see so little in the GW Bush article, and even more surprised at his approval ratings, but I guess the media liked him. 11:30, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

"... he said - she said bs garnished with lots of journalistic opinion ..." my foot. They're lists and databases with documented falsehoods, i.e., "he said" quotes. The Washington Post, for example, even has an interactive graphic with "a running list of every false or misleading statement" and his "many flip-flops, since those earn Upside-Down Pinocchios if a politician shifts position on an issue without acknowledging he or she did so." Here are some others: PolitiFact, TIME, NYT with a comparison of falsehoods told by Obama and Trump in their first 10 months in office, NYT again with a bunch of quotes, USA Today with his biggest whoppers of 2017. A social scientist who analyzed the falsehoods (actually, she calls them lies) documented in WaPo's FactChecker in the Independent said it was "a flood of deceit" and, since "reporters have access to only a subset of Trump's false statements - the ones he makes publicly - so unless he never stretches the truth in private, his actual rate of lying is almost certainly higher." She also wrote this: "The most stunning way Trump's lies differed from our participants' , though, was in their cruelty. An astonishing 50 percent of Trump's lies were hurtful or disparaging." That's one for the history books and for the encyclopedia - most falsehoods ever and most disparaging falsehoods ever. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:18, 12 May 2018 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:20, 12 May 2018 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:37, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I think a bigger issue here is the total focus on the claims which results in a failure to read the qualifiers in those same cited sources. For example, NYTimes stated: These are not scientific measurements, of course, because the selection of statements for examination is inherently subjective and focused on those that seem questionable, rather than a gauge of all public comments. Mr. Trump’s defenders say fact-checking organizations like PolitiFact are politically biased, which Mr. Adair and his counterparts adamantly deny. But even among Republicans examined by PolitiFact, Mr. Trump is an outlier. I don't understand why there is such an intense focus on one small aspect of his life - it's no secret that he's flamboyant with his words, or that he exaggerates, distorts, misstates and makes what some have alleged to be falsehoods - we're not on a mission to discredit BLPs; rather, our mission is to provide RS statements of fact and encyclopedic information. The section title "False statements" is not NPOV, and neither is the contents - specifically DUE & BALANCE. We should not constantly have to bring this up. 16:56, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I've looked at your changes to the section formerly entitled "False statements" but haven't touched it yet. The "small aspect of his life" seems to be taking up a lot of his time, day in, day out – that presidential bully pulpit thing, announcements, interviews, tweet, tweet, tweet. We're also not on a mission to suppress negative information about a subject or to make excuses for a subject who "exaggerates, distorts, misstates and makes what some have alleged to be falsehoods" - your words ("some", allege"?). He's flamboyant with his hair, but he lies like a rug violates the Ninth Commandment.

You cherry-picked two quotes from one NYT articles. For example, you use a partial quote from this sentence: "But the episode goes to the heart of a more fundamental debate about Mr. Trump: When does he know the things he says are false, and when is he simply misinformed?" and use it to add editorial spin: "Some questions have been raised in an attempt to determine when he knows 'the things he says are false, and when is he simply misinformed'." A fundamental debate is equivalent to "some questions having been raised in an attempt to determine"? The article goes on to say this: "Mr. Trump, after all, has made so many claims that stretch the bounds of accuracy that full-time fact-checkers struggle to keep up. Most Americans long ago concluded that he is dishonest, according to polls. While most presidents lie at times, Mr. Trump’s speeches and Twitter posts are embedded with so many false, distorted, misleading or unsubstantiated claims that he has tested even the normally low standards of American politics."

You could also have cited some specific falsehoods mentioned in the article: "Mr. Trump’s presidency has been marked from the start with false or misleading statements, such as his outlandish claims that more people came to his inauguration than any before and that at least three million unauthorized immigrants voted illegally against him, costing him the popular vote. He has gone on to assert that President Barack Obama wiretapped Trump Tower, a claim that his own Justice Department refuted, and that he would not benefit from his tax-cutting plan." Or this: "The lack of fidelity to facts has real-world consequences in both foreign affairs and domestic policymaking." The RS you used for your qualifiers don't work! Suggest you remove the last two sentences. I haven't made up my mind about adding "exaggerated or distorted" to the heading. Feels like a qualifier to draw attention away from false. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:06, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Based on what I've read, this whole BLP is cherrypicked, so don't be cherrypicking things I've said about the NYTimes article, which btw is dated March 17, 2018 - the most updated of all the sources that were cited in that paragraph. I cited a high quality source that explains exactly how the media has singled out certain statements by Trump, and we'll see if an RfC determines it to be worthy of inclusion or not. There's plenty of time to get this article right. 03:50, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Propose a small rewording of mention of protests in lead

Per current consensus, item , the exact wording used in the lead to discuss protests is His election and policies sparked numerous protests. As there continue to be protests against policies, perhaps this sentence ought to read His election and policies have sparked numerous protests. This is also consistent with the language at the linked Protests against Donald Trump. Goodnightmush 14:45, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

...numerous protests by his political opponents. Keep in mind that the US is a constitutional republic with a representative democracy and political parties dominated by a two-party system, so when there are protestors, we need to qualify who is protesting so readers from other countries will have a better understanding of what is involved. 18:51, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with applying the label “political opponents” to all the protesters. A brush too broad. O3000 (talk) 19:38, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

It's not as broad as "numerous protests" which actually is a generalized sweep of all opinions, and is clearly misleading. I doubt his base would be protesting against him, and that is what makes a big difference in how the US government operates vs the governments in other countries which are actually governed under much different democracies from the 2-party system in the US, and the electoral college, etc. I am eligible to vote in another country because of my residency status and despite it being in a different language, the long lists of candidates representing pages of different parties made me wanna catch a rabbit. 19:59, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

See generally Template:Specify, concerning statements that lack sufficient specificity. "This situation most often arises when sources are over-summarized to an excessive level..." Example: "Latin American liberation theology met opposition from power in the US." That claim "needs further specification as to who opposed it ... and when"; otherwise, it's "too vague to really be verifiable, and seems like a conspiracy theory in Misplaced Pages's voice." --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:22, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out, Dervorguilla. In fact, if more editors would look at the various inline templates, we may be spared from having to explain everything. , , , , , and so on. 14:55, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• Agree with Goodnightmush's reasoning and proposal to change past tense to present perfect. I also strongly oppose applying the label "political opponents" to the protesters, particularly not after reading Atsme's reason for using it in the article, i.e., editoriliazing short of saying "Democrats": "Keep in mind that the US is a constitutional republic with a representative democracy and Political parties in the United States dominated by a two-party system, so when there are protestors, we need to qualify who is protesting so readers from other countries will have a better understanding of what is involved." We don't know what political affiliation, if any, the protesters had/have. "Numerous protests" is neither a generalization nor misleading, it's a statement of fact, and I'm pretty sure that nobody anywhere in the world thought it was Trump's base protesting. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 05:31, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Well if that's the case, don't include it in the lede at all. It's too vague for information that is worthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia. Verifiable statements of fact can be attributed with inline citations, but in this case, and it happens to be a derogatory opinion, so use in-text attribution and cite the RS. It's not our job to give the appearance something is widespread when it's actually limited in scope to the partisan opposition. 22:17, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

The word “partisan” does not pass WP:LABEL unless you can prove every one of the hundreds of thousands of protesters is a partisan. As you tend to link to videos, here’s an example of the concept: O3000 (talk) 22:25, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

O3000, partisan is not a contentious label...racist, extremist, pervert are contentious labels. It would be much better to leave the widespread generalization out of the lead and narrow it down to "his election sparked numerous protests". To say his policies sparked numerous protests is dubious. First of all, Trump had not signed any policies into law when the protests/marches first began (right after his election). See the policies Trump signed into law during his first year. You would also be hard pressed to include his supporters as being among those who were protesting his election or his policies. See Protests against Donald Trump (which needs work so if you have time, compare it to Protests against Barack Obama and Protests against George W. Bush, the latter made me laugh.) 00:32, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Support adding "have sparked" (since they are continuing) and oppose adding "political opponents". The Reliable Source reporting says there were protests, numerous protests, huge protests. Reliable Source reporting does not say the protesters were Democrats, or "political opponents", or any other partisan label. The protests were so broad-based that they probably transcended the usual political labels and included people who are not generally politically active at all. In particular, the Women's march and the March for science seemed to bring in a much broader group of participants than the usual partisan divides. And the fact that he had "not yet signed any policies into law" is irrelevant. In most cases the protesters were opposing what he said he intended to do, not what he had already done. --MelanieN (talk) 01:02, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree with MelanieN. That there were protests based on his policies and election is a plain fact that doesn't need (over)qualification. I've  Done the change, whole political opponents etc is a separate debate but on changing the tense there's unamity Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:16, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I support the change just made, and I agree adding "political opponents" is inappropriate. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:18, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but what's so wrong about accuracy? The marches were not protests about his policies - they were protests against his election and partisan opponents are still protesting the election and calling for his impeachment. Melanie, name 2 policies that were protested...then we can justify adding "policies". I liken it to your opposition to blaming Clinton for starting the whole birther thing...and yes, words matter and generalizations are generalizations, so if one is not allowed, none should be allowed for the same reason - no double standards, please. 19:25, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Of course the protests are about policies, including:

• The travel ban
• Immigrant policies and the planned wall
• Plans to delete climate change data and gag scientists
• Detainment of refugees and visitors from countries blocked by Trump's Executive Order.
• Health “reform” policies
• The U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement
• Decision to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)

In one month, WaPo said that 82.7% of all protests in the country “were opposing Trump’s policies”. What do you think so many protests are about – his hair? This claim that all these protests by women’s groups, scientists, etc. are all just upset Democrats is disingenuous. O3000 (talk) 20:05, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

What O3000 said. And we are not proposing to ADD policies to the sentence - it is already there and has been for a long time. The current sentence says His election and policies have sparked numerous protests.. That's how it should stay. --MelanieN (talk) 20:19, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Mr. Trump's grossly offensive and divisive statements about women and Mexicans were, or were presumed to be, sexist and racist. And they did -- understandably -- spark numerous heated protests. But per WP:IAR they cannot be misleadingly characterized as “his policies”.

"Policy," Black's Law Dictionary, 10th ed. "A standard course of action that has been officially established by a ... political party, etc."

Also, "his" (in this context) = "not Hers". As a whole, the American electorate opposed Her policies more than Mr. Trump's policies, 50.6%–48.7%. Neither the Republicans, nor the Libertarians, nor the Greens, nor the Constitutionists disputed the election results. See also Clinton, "A vote for a third party is a vote for Donald Trump." --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:38, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

That's why we say "his election and policies". Not every protester had the same motivation, and for most the motivation was mixed. Some protested his election, some his general character and fitness, some his policy proposals (in the general sense; the Mexican wall was a policy proposal even if it wasn't something "officially established"), some "all of the above". If it would make you happy we could say "protesting his election and/or his policies" but I would oppose that, because there is basically no distinction between the various reasons for protesting. Reliable Sources do not provide information on that issue; it would be purely Original Research to say something about it. (WaPo above says that four-fifths of protests were against "his policies," but I submit they do not know or do not make a distinction between his policies and him personally.) And for goodness sakes let's not even try to interpret how various percentages of the electorate felt: she got more votes, he won the presidency, that's the situation, end of story. --MelanieN (talk) 04:02, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

There's a second definition of "policies" in politics: The declared objectives a government or party seeks to achieve and preserve, as in "what he said." Nobody disputed the election results (unless you want to count Jill Stein suing in Michigan and Wisconsin). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 04:36, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Since both of you misunderstood my statement, I owe you an apology for the ambiguity. I meant to agree that the Mexican wall was his most renowned officially established course of action. (Source: "Policies" page on the official Donald J. Trump for President website.)

Also, Ms. Clinton got fewer votes than her opponents in aggregate, not more. And as it turned out, that's what mattered this time. Had she gotten 50% of the vote, she would have won the presidency. Had she and the other Establishment candidate (Mr. McMullin) in aggregate gotten 50% of the vote, she would likewise have won the presidency. Had the election just been between her and Mr. Trump, he by himself would have gotten more of the vote than she by herself (according to postelectoral analyses). Had it been between Mr. Sanders and Mr. Trump, however, Mr. Sanders would gotten more of the vote (according to the Economist's polls) -- and the Establishment still would have lost! The mainstream Establishment press has more-or-less adjusted to this situation (see this week's Time cover story on the FBI) and is moving away from the somewhat distorted perspective (as I view it) that's still displayed in parts of this article's lead.

However, I've said my piece here, and I appreciate your listening. I think I should drop out now and focus on making less controversial efforts to improve the article. --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:03, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I’m not seeing anything about the many protests and marches against past presidents. Why are they included in this one? Do you not see what’s happening or why because it’s pretty obvious to me. 11:17, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, protests are included in the article for the normal reason. There is a large quantity of ReliableSource coverage of the protests, with that coverage reporting the protests were unusually numerous, and reporting they were unusually massive involving many millions of people.

Commenting that you don't see such coverage in other presidential articles is both Whataboutism-other-articles and False equivalence. Even if there were an equal quantity of ReliableSource coverage of an equal number of protests of equal size for many or most other presidents, it is still irrelevant and inappropriate on this talk page. Alsee (talk) 02:55, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with most of what you said Alsee. We try to maintain some form of consistency, MOS, and NPOV in our BLPs, whether they're public figures or not. We've got 2-1/2 more years to go, for Pete's sake. We should not be cramming in every single hate detail and negative thing the media ever said about this guy. Most of it is journalistic opinion that should be added with in-text attribution. Where are we going to put the encyclopedic information at the end of his presidency when all the hoopla dies down? I'd be willing to wager that a lot of these opinions will be deleted like they were at Barrack Obama, so I'm not going to get my panties in a wad over it. I doubt many readers get past the lead and maybe the first 3 sections anyway and we're already at 85 kB (13851 words) "readable prose size". 03:28, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories heading or sub-heading

I think we should create a heading or sub-heading devoted to Trump's promotion of various conspiracy theorists. These include Obama being a Muslim, Obama not being American, climate change being a hoax invented by the Chinese, vaccines causing autism, millions of illegal aliens voting with the help of the Democrats, Ted Cruz' dad being involved in the Kennedy assassination, and so on. What say you guys? Should there be a sub-heading devoted to the conspiracy theories of Trump? Steeletrap (talk) 04:10, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

• Nope. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:12, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
• Yes, there's enough RS coverage to justify it, and he's "famously spread conspiracies and false claims" and fake news. Researchers from Princeton University, Dartmouth College, and the University of Exeter examined the consumption of fake news during the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign. Brendan Nyhan, one of the researchers, emphatically stated in an interview on NBC News: "People got vastly more misinformation from Donald Trump than they did from fake news websites -- full stop."

NBC NEWS: "It feels like there's a connection between having an active portion of a party that's prone to seeking false stories and conspiracies and a president who has famously spread conspiracies and false claims. In many ways, demographically and ideologically, the president fits the profile of the fake news users that you're describing."

NYHAN: "It's worrisome if fake news websites further weaken the norm against false and misleading information in our politics, which unfortunately has eroded. But it's also important to put the content provided by fake news websites in perspective. People got vastly more misinformation from Donald Trump than they did from fake news websites -- full stop."

BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:54, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

• No - let’s wait until after OIG presents his report. The biggest conspiracy theory thus far has been allegations of his collusion with Russia so if that’s what you have in mind, it may be worthy of its own article...but again, wait until we know what Mueller has, and what the OIG has - no rush...no deadline. Let’s get the article right. 11:06, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
• Maybe - Besides just talking about Trump's conspiracy du jour, have any RSs of any sort collected such a list? Greg L (talk) 14:15, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I just added a nonexclusive list of RS documenting Trump's telling of falsehoods and promoting of conspiracy theories to the "Deception" section above. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:51, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, and the falsehoods, alternative facts, exaggerations, misinformation, distortions (whatever), that were specifically singled out by the media are not all b&w falsehoods as explained in the NYTimes. We also need to wait for the conclusions of the Mueller probe, the OIG investigation, and the Gowdy/Nunes classified briefing of the DOJ (that had to be subpoenaed to get the FBI docs). We're in RECENTISM territory, and until all these claims have been substantiated, we should not be going beyond in-text attribution, especially as it relates to any conspiracy theories, and whether or not they're a product of "deception". There's no rush. If the purpose is to provide encyclopedic information to benefit our readers, I'm sure most would be far more interested in the dismantlement of N Korea's nuclear test site. 01:56, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Dismantlement, huh - been watching North Korean propaganda? The mountain collapsed. When your nuclear test site is kaput, suspending your nuclear testing (nice clip – courtesy of TIME – of North Korean TV anchorwoman waxing enthusiastic) isn’t much of a concession, with or without the preceding name-calling hissy fits between the two dear leaders. Also, I am not aware that Mueller, OIG, or Nunes/Gowdy are looking into - alleged, whatever - Trump falsehoods, promotions of conspiracy theories, etc. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:24, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Shhhhh...you'll have all the pro-trumpeters trumpeting that Trump secretly moved a few mountains and scared the bajeebies outta rocket man. 😂 As far as not knowing about the ongoing investigations by Mueller, OIG and Gowdy/Nunes...surely you jest? 00:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

And here you're misquoting me. I didn't say that I don't know about the Special Counsel investigation of Russian interference & alleged collusion by American actors, the OIG investigation of alleged FBI violations, the Nunes/Gowdy "investigation" of "alleged" misdeeds by everybody EXCEPT Trump & his campaign, I said that they're not investigating Trump's stream of falsehoods, etc. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:42, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Noop - to begin I didn't "quote" you so I couldn't possibly have misquoted you; secondly (and now I'm quoting you with my bold underline for emphasis), you said: Also, I am not aware that Mueller, OIG, or Nunes/Gowdy are looking into - alleged, whatever - Trump falsehoods, promotions of conspiracy theories, etc. In my book, "alleged, whatever" covers a lot of territory and so does "etc." 22:54, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

"False statements" section

Section title

Earlier today Atsme changed the title of that subsection from "False statements" to "False, exaggerated or distorted statements." I disagree with that change. The fact checkers are not calling him out for exaggerating; they are calling him out for saying things that are simply false - factually incorrect. The Reliable Sources quoted in that section say "false or misleading" (twice), "inaccurate", and "misstatements". I think we should change the title back. --MelanieN (talk) 01:30, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree, we follow RS. And what RS say distorted? O3000 (talk) 01:41, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Not true - read the NYTimes article. They are specific statements they're calling out - the higher quality RS qualify what statements they are calling out. Don't forget, we should be using specific statements, not generalizations. For example, is it really a falsehood to say more people watched the inauguration when you consider 8 years later, people were watching on different devices? This is still a BLP, and while we have some leniency with PUBLICFIGURE, we still have to use in-text attribution when the claims are as vague as these. That is exactly why I wrote the paragraphs the way I did and used in-text attribution to quote the source. You have more leeway in the Presidency of... but I would still steer clear of generalizations. Oh, and Melanie - call an RfC if you are in disagreement because local consensus just isn't going to cut it. 01:45, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

The section title was not a fair representation of the overall coverage of Trump's habit of lying. If anything, this section should be updated based on more recent tallies of his lies, and the widespread view that the lies are not simply exaggerations or "distorted statements" (which is just a fancy way of saying "lies"). If this section is going to be changed so radically, it needs to be discussed first and should be based on a broader, not a narrower, perspective.- MrX 🖋 02:11, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Either restore the original title (or retitle it to "Alternative facts", which is the Trump administation's word for "falsehoods". No, just use the original title.) -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

MrX - see #22 above in the list of consensus items. If you keep using the word "lies" to describe this BLP, you are very likely to be in vio of BLP. I'm not sure what you did is not borderline a vio of Consensus - re: any page BLP vio. The cited sources you replaced are #255 "Fact-Checking President Trump Through His First 100 Days", #256 "President Trump's first 100 days: The fact check tally", and #257 "In One Rally, 12 Inaccurate Claims From Trump", and only one cited source at #258 "President Trump has made 1,318 false or misleading claims over 263 days". The words false or misleading claims is used, so what I added was very much supported by the cited sources, and if you'll read the Times article, the falsehoods some seem to be getting all out of NPOV whack over were qualified by the NYTimes with a very unambiguous explanation that media singled out specific statements so you actually returned a section I worked to make compliant and returned it to noncompliance and did so via a BLP vio in your edit summary. Would you like to self-revert or are you not concerned about a BLP vio in light of #22 Consensus list? 02:47, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

It's not violating anything to improve the text. SPECIFICO talk 02:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Sometimes not calling a lie a lie is a lie. If we're discussing RS which use the word "lie" or "liar", then we should be able to use their wording when discussing them without someone getting all thin-skinned about it. It's different if we are just voicing our opinions. Then we should be careful. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:03, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@Atsme:Why are you referring me to consensus #22? I never wrote that he is a liar in the article, and I wouldn't because it's not in keeping with encyclopedic tone. But let's not mince words—he is most definitely a liar; a fact which is well documented in multiple reliable sources, including the ones I linked below. Your version was much less representative of the body of sources on the subject than the current version. I'm happy to discuss how we can make it even better, by updating it and informing our readers of how extensively Trump's lies permeate his public persona.- MrX 🖋 03:08, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

My goodness, MrX - I quoted the sources, how can you say what I added was less representative? That's bologna!! 🥪 WaPo used "lies" in the headline - hello bait-click - but in the body they say "3,000 false or misleading public statements." You know better, so why are you doing this? 03:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

The headline is also part of the source and can be quoted. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

"Body of sources", meaning the preponderance of reliable sources, not the few that one finds that happen to agree with one's person POV. Psst. It's click-bait not bait-click.- MrX 🖋 03:28, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

MrX, mine is the action verb form: bait headline...reader clicks....bait-click. 😂 15:04, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Don't mind me, I'm just heading to the store to buy some bait-fish. 172.58.153.102 (talk) 15:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

IP, real anglers don't buy bait - they throw a bait-net. 05:23, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

First sentence of the paragraph

Another, kind of minor thing in that section, but I will bring it here since there was disagreement at the article. In the "False statements" section, the first sentence used to read As president, Trump has frequently made false statements in public speeches and remarks. Atsme changed that first sentence to Media fact checkers have analyzed some of Trump's statements during his first 100 days as president, and determined that he made frequent false, exaggerated or distorted claims in his public speeches and remarks. I changed that to Media fact checkers have analyzed some of Trump's statements since assuming the presidency, and determined that he made frequent false, exaggerated or distorted claims in his public speeches and remarks. with the edit summary "not just the first 100 days". The paragraph includes fact-check tallies from 100 days, 99 days, and 263 days, as well as more general statements not qualified as to what time period they are covering. She restored the "during his first 100 days as president" wording, with the edit summary "the first few sentences are cited to the 1st 100 days only, then it changes to different periods and citations". I don’t think we should specify "first 100 days" in the opening sentence of the paragraph when that doesn’t apply to the whole paragraph. And now that I look at it (I missed this before), it should say "false statements," not "false, exaggerated or distorted claims," because the latter does not reflect what the sources say. --MelanieN (talk) 01:30, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Again agree. We must use RS? O3000 (talk) 01:42, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Disagree - the sources cited state 1ST 100 DAYS. The sources also use the word "claims". What you're doing now seems more like IDONTLIKEIT. The information in that section is cited to specific sources that made the specific claims. You cannot just generalize without sourcing it to something in a BLP, and you can't have your own facts. Be specific to the RS and keep PUBLICFIGURE, CONTENTIOUS LABELS, and BALANCE AND WEIGHT in mind. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. 01:51, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

We're way past 100 days, so let's dispense with that and update the article. We can start with his 3000+ lies..- MrX 🖋 02:15, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

MrX - the NYTimes article I cited was dated March 17, 2018. Did you get a chance to read it? 03:09, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes.- MrX 🖋 03:38, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Unlike the other article's section at Presidency of Donald Trump#False and misleading statements (an excellent section title we could use here), we are not limited to his presidency. We can go as far back as we have RS documentation. We can start with my first suggestion there, which, unfortunately, included some content from before his presidency, so it was correct to pare it down, and I did. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:29, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

(EC) Atsme: Huh? Are we talking about the same edit? As far as the first 100 days thing, I am just saying that the opening sentence of the paragraph, which is written like a summary, should not include a figure that applies to only part of the paragraph. That’s a simple matter of summary style. As for all that alphabet soup, are you talking about your preference to say false, exaggerated and distorted claims instead of false statements? I don’t really care about claims vs statements and I don’t want to use up all my monthly allotment of NYT and WaPo articles to see which is more commonly used. But I do object to adding exaggerated when exaggeration is not what he is getting called out for. Look a the sources yourself: false or misleading is the predominant descriptor used. In any case, you only harm your own credibility when you start shouting BLP! and RfC! and Exceptional claims! over a matter of whether to add or remove a couple of words, when the issue is readily solved by consulting the sources. --MelanieN (talk) 02:34, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

That "alphabet soup" equals IDONTLIKEIT. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:39, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Stop the snark, BR. Melanie - the summary statement is misleading and not supported by the cited sources which is why I used in-text attribution. Furthermore, MrX just reverted the NYTimes updated 2018 statement that qualified the media's selections of falsehoods, misstatements and distortions by Trump - Some questions have been raised in an attempt to determine when he knows "the things he says are false, and when is he simply misinformed." The New York Times qualified that claims of Trump's falsehoods and misstatements are "not scientific measurements, of course, because the selection of statements for examination is inherently subjective and focused on those that seem questionable, rather than a gauge of all public comments." By removing that statement and what I added made that section unquestionably noncompliant with NPOV....not only because it was based on cherrypicked statements by Trump the media used for analysis, but because the lead in sentence generalizes the whole thing. It's wrong, and it's noncompliant with policy. We don't call any BLP a "liar", especially when #22 Consensus above says not to do that. We are now in BLP vio territory. 03:04, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

We do quote RS when they use words like "lie" and "liar". We just don't do it in wikivoice. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:09, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

The subject is "false" statements, not "true" statements. To stay on topic one must cherrypick statements, leaving out the true and documenting the false. This type of cherrypicking is perfectly proper. We are even allowed to have articles here that focus on a single "notable" POV. Trump is remarkable for the degree to which his statements are untrue. He's way outside the norm for what we mean when we say that "everyone lies" or "all politicians lie". He's uniquely disconnected from truth. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:15, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

"President Donald Trump is an "unethical" man "untethered to truth and institutional values," former FBI Director James Comey writes in his eagerly anticipated memoir, which paints the president as living in "a cocoon of alternative reality."" NBC News A great book. We're almost finished listening to the audiobooks version. He narrates it himself. I have the book as well. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, I'm not exactly sure what you think this means:

"These are not scientific measurements, of course, because the selection of statements for examination is inherently subjective and focused on those that seem questionable, rather than a gauge of all public comments."

That looks like a standard disclaimer. They are not making some sort of ratio statement, for example 73% true vs. 27% false. In fact, one never sees such things. They are choosing to look at statements which accuracy have been doubted. Then they analyze them. That's what fact checkers do. They don't examine statements which are not questioned. True statements don't usually get questioned, only statements that seem dubious. Then they are rated as true, mixed, or false (or some such system). Our section covers the false ones.

The same standard is used for all public persons and politicians. Trump is judged by the same standards used by all members of the International Fact-Checking Network. The major fact checkers are members and are nonpartisan: Poynter Institute, PolitiFact, FactCheck, Snopes, and The Washington Post.

Trump rates as far more deceptive because he is, not because he's been treated unfairly. Them's the facts, and I don't have the luxury of ignoring those facts, as some do. Editors here should be better than that. Ideally we should take it for granted that our politicians attempt to always be honest with us. They lose credibility when they frequently let us down. We shouldn't be in this situation, where neither Americans nor foreign allies can trust Trump because he lacks credibility. He can't be trusted because he is dishonest so much of the time. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Looks like we are talking about the whole edit, not just those two points

I see that MrX has restored the previous text of the article since we should discuss such changes before implementing them. That unfortunately removed the March 2018 NYT article you added, which I think added valuable balance to the section, and I would be OK with re-adding it if others agree. My opposition to "exaggerated and distorted claims" still stands. --MelanieN (talk) 02:34, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm opposed to the vague wording "Some questions have been raised in an attempt to determine when he knows "the things he says are false, and when is he simply misinformed."" and it's at least a little tangential to the central fact that his statements and comments are very frequently at at odds with objective reality.- MrX 🖋 03:20, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I object, too. As I said in another thread a couple of days ago, the quotes were cherry-picked and taken out of context. The contested content was:

1. Some questions have been raised in an attempt to determine when he knows "the things he says are false, and when is he simply misinformed." For starters, "questions being raised in an attempt to determine" is gobbledygook. The NYT article says that there’s a debate about whether he knowingly tells falsehoods or not; there’s no debate about the actual telling. The article then continues: "Mr. Trump, after all, has made so many claims that stretch the bounds of accuracy that full-time fact-checkers struggle to keep up. Most Americans long ago concluded that he is dishonest, according to polls. While most presidents lie at times, Mr. Trump’s speeches and Twitter posts are embedded with so many false, distorted, misleading or unsubstantiated claims that he has tested even the normally low standards of American politics." That sounds pretty conclusive to me.
2. The New York Times qualified that claims of Trump's falsehoods and misstatements are "not scientific measurements, of course, because the selection of statements for examination is inherently subjective and focused on those that seem questionable, rather than a gauge of all public comments." The first part of the sentence is editorializing and generalizing; the NYT was talking only about PolitiFacts' selection and the comparative percentages it found for various politicians. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:11, 14 May 2018 (UTC) Re "claims of falsehoods and misstatements": Nice editorial spin: The NYT article uses the verb five times, the noun three, and every time it's about Trump's claims about all sort of things, not other people's claims about him. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:23, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN, I don't agree with MrX regarding his reasons for opposing the following: "Some questions have been raised in an attempt to determine when he knows "the things he says are false, and when is he simply misinformed." I paraphrased and used in-line text attribution from the NYTimes which, in exact wording, states: "But the episode goes to the heart of a more fundamental debate about Mr. Trump: When does he know the things he says are false, and when is he simply misinformed?" My paraphrased lead into the quote represents what the source says; however, I would not be opposed to quoting the published sentence in its entirety if it offers a path to resolution. I also object to the false comparisons being made about Trump's falsehoods vs those of past presidents, primarily because no consideration was given to the fact that Trump has done his best to avoid the measured/rehearsed/prepared press conferences while opting for public rallies, conferences, Twitter and on-the-fly exchanges with media - and he's had many - leaving him far more exposed to media criticism whenever he gets a fact wrong, exaggerates, misstates, or distorts information. He clearly lacks the suave and political posh of those who were groomed for that position. I believe it is important information that should be included in his BLP because it speaks volumes as to who he is, his demeanor, what he lacks in political polish, why his base continues to support him, etc. 06:38, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Please don't put any of that original research in the article. Thanks for linking to the Politico article. Unfortunately, it does not support your theory.- MrX 🖋 12:17, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

MrX - what OR are you referring to? I'm quoting the NYTimes. 15:23, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@Atsme: Everything starting with "... the false comparisons being made..." until the end. Also, your paraphrase was not really a faithful representation of the source. See Space4Time3Continuum2x's comment for more information.- MrX 🖋 19:27, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Well...again, I disagree, and apparently so does the Politico article I linked. Vanity Fair supports my claim of "measured/rehearsed/prepared" exposure by the former president, but I have other articles I want to work on today, so I'll leave it there. Happy editing! 20:40, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

False and misleading statements - new content

Here it is. We can use it here, as a start. I have relied heavily on factual, not opinion, sources, IOW fact checkers and researchers. These are not opinions, but descriptions of actual research and statistics used by fact checkers. It can no doubt be improved. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

As president, Trump has made a large number of false statements in public speeches and remarks. Trump uttered "at least one false or misleading claim per day on 91 of his first 99 days" in office according to The New York Times, and 1,628 total in his first 298 days in office according to the "Fact Checker" analysis of The Washington Post, or an average of 5.5 per day. The Post fact-checker also wrote, "President Trump is the most fact-challenged politician that The Fact Checker has ever encountered... the pace and volume of the president's misstatements means that we cannot possibly keep up."

Glenn Kessler, a fact checker for The Washington Post, told Dana Milbank that, in his six years on the job, "'there's no comparison' between Trump and other politicians. Kessler says politicians' statements get his worst rating — four Pinocchios — 15 percent to 20 percent of the time. Clinton is about 15 percent. Trump is 63 percent to 65 percent."

Maria Konnikova, writing in Politico Magazine, wrote: "All Presidents lie.... But Donald Trump is in a different category. The sheer frequency, spontaneity and seeming irrelevance of his lies have no precedent.... Trump seems to lie for the pure joy of it. A whopping 70 percent of Trump’s statements that PolitiFact checked during the campaign were false, while only 4 percent were completely true, and 11 percent mostly true."

Senior administration officials have also regularly given false, misleading or tortured statements to the media. By May 2017, Politico reported that the repeated untruths by senior officials made it difficult for the media to take official statements seriously.

Trump's presidency started out with a series of falsehoods initiated by Trump himself. The day after his inauguration, he falsely accused the media of lying about the size of the inauguration crowd. Then he proceeded to exaggerate the size, and Sean Spicer backed up his claims. When Spicer was accused of intentionally misstating the figures, Kellyanne Conway, in an interview with NBC's Chuck Todd, defended Spicer by stating that he merely presented "alternative facts". Todd responded by saying "alternative facts are not facts. They're falsehoods."

Social scientist and researcher Bella DePaulo, an expert on the psychology of lying, stated: "I study liars. I've never seen one like President Trump." Trump outpaced "even the biggest liars in our research." She compared the research on lying with his lies, finding that his lies differed from those told by others in several ways: Trump's total rate of lying is higher than for others; He tells 6.6 times as many self-serving lies as kind lies, whereas ordinary people tell 2 times as many self-serving lies as kind lies. 50% of Trump's lies are cruel lies, while it's 1-2% for others. 10% of Trump's lies are kind lies, while it's 25% for others. His lies often "served several purposes simultaneously", and he doesn't "seem to care whether he can defend his lies as truthful".

Dara Lind described "The 9 types of lies Donald Trump tells the most". He lies about: tiny things; crucial policy differences; chronology; makes himself into the victim; exaggerates "facts that should bolster his argument"; "endorses blatant conspiracy theories"; "things that have no basis in reality"; "obscures the truth by denying he said things he said, or denying things are known that are known"; and about winning.

In a Scientific American article, Jeremy Adam Smith sought to answer the question of how Trump could get away with making so many false statements and still maintain support among his followers. He proposed that "Trump is telling 'blue' lies—a psychologist's term for falsehoods, told on behalf of a group, that can actually strengthen the bonds among the members of that group.... From this perspective, lying is a feature, not a bug, of Trump's campaign and presidency."

David Fahrenthold has investigated Trump's claims about his charitable giving and found little evidence the claims are true. Following Fahrenthold's reporting, the Attorney General of New York opened an inquiry into the Donald J. Trump Foundation's fundraising practices, and ultimately issued a "notice of violation" ordering the Foundation to stop raising money in New York. The Foundation had to admit it engaged in self-dealing practices to benefit Trump, his family, and businesses. Fahrenthold won the 2017 Pulitzer Prize in National Reporting for his coverage of Trump's claimed charitable giving and casting "doubt on Donald Trump's assertions of generosity toward charities."

In March 2018, The Washington Post reported that Trump, at a fundraising speech, had recounted the following incident: in a meeting with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Trump insisted to Trudeau that the United States ran a trade deficit with Canada, even though Trump later admitted he had "no idea" whether that was really the case. According to the Office of the United States Trade Representative, the United States has a trade surplus with Canada.

Here are a few of Trump's notable claims which fact checkers have rated false: that Obama wasn't born in the United States and that Hillary Clinton started the Obama "birther" movement; that his electoral college victory was a "landslide"; that Hillary Clinton received 3-5 million illegal votes; and that he was "totally against the war in Iraq".

Sources

^ Linda Qiu, Fact-Checking President Trump Through His First 100 Days, The New York Times (April 29, 2017). Glenn Kessler & Michelle Ye Hee Lee, President Trump's first 100 days: The fact check tally, The Washington Post (May 1, 2017). Linda Qiu, In One Rally, 12 Inaccurate Claims From Trump. The New York Times (June 22, 2017). Sheryl Gay Stolberg, Many Politicians Lie. But Trump Has Elevated the Art of Fabrication., New York Times (August 7, 2017). "President Trump has made 1,628 false or misleading claims over 298 days". The Washington Post. November 14, 2017. Retrieved April 1, 2018. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help) Ye, Hee Lee Michelle; Kessler, Glenn; Kelly, Meg. "President Trump has made 1,318 false or misleading claims over 263 days". The Washington Post. Retrieved November 5, 2017. Milbank, Dana (July 1, 2016). "The facts behind Donald Trump's many falsehoods". The Washington Post. Retrieved April 2, 2018. Konnikova, Maria (January 20, 2017). "Trump's Lies vs. Your Brain". Politico Magazine. Retrieved March 31, 2018. ^ "Trump's trust problem". Politico. Retrieved May 16, 2017. "From the archives: Sean Spicer on Inauguration Day crowds". PolitiFact. January 21, 2017. Retrieved March 30, 2018. "FACT CHECK: Was Donald Trump's Inauguration the Most Viewed in History?". Snopes. January 22, 2017. Retrieved March 30, 2018. "The Facts on Crowd Size". FactCheck. January 23, 2017. Retrieved March 30, 2018. Rein, Lisa (March 6, 2017). "Here are the photos that show Obama's inauguration crowd was bigger than Trump's". The Washington Post. Retrieved March 8, 2017. Hirschfeld Davis, Julie; Rosenberg, Matthew (January 21, 2017). "With False Claims, Trump Attacks Media on Turnout and Intelligence Rift". The New York Times. Retrieved March 8, 2017. Makarechi, Kia (January 2, 2014). "Trump Spokesman Sean Spicer's Lecture on Media Accuracy Is Peppered With Lies". Vanity Fair. Retrieved January 22, 2017. Kessler, Glenn. "Spicer earns Four Pinocchios for false claims on inauguration crowd size". The Washington Post. Retrieved January 22, 2017. Jaffe, Alexandra. "Kellyanne Conway: WH Spokesman Gave 'Alternative Facts' on Inauguration Crowd". NBC News. Retrieved January 22, 2017. Blake, Aaron (January 22, 2017). "Kellyanne Conway says Donald Trump's team has 'alternative facts.' Which pretty much says it all". The Washington Post. Retrieved March 31, 2018. DePaulo, Bella (December 7, 2017). "Perspective - I study liars. I've never seen one like President Trump". The Washington Post. Retrieved March 30, 2018. DePaulo, Bella (December 9, 2017). "How President Trump's Lies Are Different From Other People's". Psychology Today. Retrieved March 30, 2018. Lind, Dara (October 26, 2016). "The 9 types of lies Donald Trump tells the most". Vox. Retrieved March 30, 2018. Smith, Jeremy Adam (March 24, 2017). "How the Science of "Blue Lies" May Explain Trump's Support". Scientific American. Retrieved March 30, 2017. Fahrenthold, David (October 4, 2016). "Trump's co-author on 'The Art of the Deal' donates $55,000 royalty check to charity". The Washington Post. Retrieved February 26, 2017. "Journalist Says Trump Foundation May Have Engaged In 'Self-Dealing'". NPR. September 28, 2016. Retrieved March 1, 2018. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help) Eder, Steve (October 3, 2016). "State Attorney General Orders Trump Foundation to Cease Raising Money in New York". The New York Times. Retrieved March 1, 2017. Fahrenthold, David A. (November 22, 2016). "Trump Foundation admits to violating ban on 'self-dealing,' new filing to IRS shows". The Washington Post. Retrieved March 31, 2018. Farhi, Paul (April 10, 2017). "Washington Post's David Fahrenthold wins Pulitzer Prize for dogged reporting of Trump's philanthropy". The Washington Post. Retrieved April 11, 2017. The Pulitzer Prizes (April 10, 2017). "2017 Pulitzer Prize: National Reporting". The Pulitzer Prizes. Retrieved April 10, 2017. Dawsey, Josh; Paletta, Damian; Werner, Erica. "In fundraising speech, Trump says he made up trade claim in meeting with Justin Trudeau". The Washington Post. Retrieved 15 March 2018. "Trump on Birtherism: Wrong, and Wrong". FactCheck. September 16, 2016. Retrieved March 30, 2018. "Trump's False claim Clinton started Obama birther talk". PolitiFact. September 16, 2016. Retrieved March 30, 2018. "Trump's electoral college victory not a 'massive landslide'". PolitiFact. December 11, 2016. Retrieved March 30, 2018. "Trump Landslide? Nope". FactCheck. November 29, 2016. Retrieved March 30, 2018. Seipel, Arnie (December 11, 2016). "FACT CHECK: Trump Falsely Claims A 'Massive Landslide Victory'". NPR. Retrieved March 30, 2018. "Pants on Fire for Trump claim that millions voted illegally". PolitiFact. November 27, 2016. Retrieved March 30, 2018. "Trump Claims Without Evidence that 3 to 5 Million Voted Illegally, Vows Investigation". Snopes. January 25, 2017. Retrieved March 30, 2018. "FALSE: Donald Trump Opposed the Iraq War from the Beginning". Snopes. September 27, 2016. Retrieved March 30, 2018. "Trump repeats wrong claim that he opposed Iraq War". PolitiFact. September 7, 2016. Retrieved March 30, 2018. "Donald Trump and the Iraq War". FactCheck. February 19, 2016. Retrieved March 30, 2018.

Atsme, please look this over for any potential BLP vios. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:57, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

This is a good start, but we should avoid excessive quotes and specific examples. The subject should be covered at a high level. There are just too many lies to from which to draw just a few representative examples.- MrX 🖋 03:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

The last sentence lists only a few "specific examples". I did choose the "high level", the scholarly, serious, professional approach, rather than sensational and opinions. Getting into opinions here would make the section too large. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:29, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

MrX, your criticism would ring more true if you had read it before commenting. Your comment was written and published in less than a minute after my content was published. Unless you can read all of my content and then write and publish your comment very fast.... 02:37 >> 03:14. You did all of that in 37 seconds. Impressive! -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:44, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Huh? I commented 36 minutes after you posted your text.- MrX 🖋 03:55, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm so sorry! I don't know what I was thinking. Minutes...seconds....big difference. My apologies. Let's start over. I still don't see how your comment really applies, as my few "specific examples" are only in the last sentence, with very few others. The Trudeau one was already in the presidential article, but we could leave it out. It's interesting as it's a rare example of Trump admitting he was lying. He doesn't usually do that, doesn't care, or seem to even know the difference. It's as if the idea of "truth" is foreign to him. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:18, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

BR, you're not seriously suggesting that we put this massive (even if sourced) essay into a minor subsection of an article the size of this? The subject of his dishonesty can have at most two paragraphs. At most. --MelanieN (talk) 05:10, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

As I mentioned before, I think we need to generalize more, and distill the various angles into a cohesive summary. Obviously, your proposed content is focused on his presidency, but we also need to cover falsehoods before and during the campaign. I'm opposed to attributing views to individuals, when it is obvious that at least some of those views can be asserted in Misplaced Pages's voice. Saying that fact checkers have rated a few of Trump's claims as false is a WP:WEASELy way of saying Trump has made false claims that Obama wasn't born in the United States, that Hillary Clinton started the Obama "birther" movement, that his electoral college victory was a "landslide", that Hillary Clinton received 3-5 million illegal votes, and that he was "totally against the war in Iraq".- MrX 🖋 14:29, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I must admit that some of that makes no sense. I'm not sure what your point is. I provided that content as something to work with. Go ahead and use it or not, but you're welcome to provide some proposed content that illustrates what you mean. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:47, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

So what do you call it when someone gets the facts wrong? Is that lying? What about when you're thinking someone is talking about the blue car, and you say no, the seats are beige, but they're actually talking about the red car with white leather. Is that lying? What about when you don't reveal all of your strategy when making a deal, and just say what you think will get the deal made - is that lying? Oh, and the fact that other presidents didn't use Twitter, or make as many public statements as this one - does that count? I say it's FALSE EQUIVALENCY to say one president lied more than another if you don't use a fair comparison. How many speeches and tweets did Trump engage in during his first 100 days vs Obama, or Bush, or Clinton? This whole falsehood thing is just plain ridiculous. 04:19, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, do you really fail to grasp that such reasoning is completely outside our purview as Misplaced Pages editors? RS clearly says Trump breaks new ground in the falsehood area, and that ends the discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:27, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

"do you really fail to grasp..." WP:NPA please, Mandruss. The discussion is ended? Why? This holding onto POV content and lack of balance is the perfect example of why "verifiability over truth" is an incredibly flawed policy, and in the end is one of the main reasons why Misplaced Pages will never be considered a reliable source. In this case (as with so many others), common sense and a strict adherence to true balance is what should supercede "we follow the sources". Why can't we discuss making that happen? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 04:52, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, by my count, in this discussion you have said "lie", "liar", or "lying" six times - and yet NO ONE has proposed putting any variation of that word into the article, and it isn't there now. We have avoided, for years, saying "liar" in Misplaced Pages's voice, and if I have anything to say about it we never will. So please drop that non-existent controversy. From now on, any time you claim we are proposing to add "lying" or "liar" to the article, we will disregard everything else you say in that paragraph, because you are clearly not paying attention. As for "BLP" or "BLP violation", I believe you have invoked that six times as well, and that is frankly ridiculous. The man has been reported, over and over, by numerous reliable sources, to have made and continue to make a extremely unusual number of "false or misleading" statements. For us not to say so would be a violation of neutrality amounting to censorship. It would certainly not be a violation of BLP, much less PUBLICFIGURE. --MelanieN (talk) 05:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC) BTW I proposed above that the balancing material you added - from the March 2018 NYT article - be restored, but that will depend on whether it gets consensus.

Why is this discussion going off on a tangent? Jiminy Cricket, can it get anymore ridiculous? MrX specifically stated a no-no in his edit summary, so please don't even try to compare it to my examples. We should not be generalizing a contentious statement in Wikivoice which is not compliant with NPOV and doesn't even accurately represent what exceptional sources have said: Trump has frequently made false statements in public speeches and remarks. It automatically begs the question, what statements were false? Are you forgetting how many readers we have that don't hate Trump, and actually support his policies? This isn't about what you or I like or don't like. It's about getting the article right. I'm saying we need to more closely reflect what exceptional sources have said, and to use inline citations and in-text attribution to quote contentious statements per MOS & NPOV - Strive to eliminate expressions that are flattering, disparaging, vague, or clichéd, or that endorse a particular point of view (unless those expressions are part of a quote from a noteworthy source) which is why I wrote: Media fact checkers have analyzed some of Trump's statements during his first 100 days as president, and determined that he made frequent false, exaggerated or distorted claims in his public speeches and remarks. Linda Qiu with The New York Times wrote: "The Times has logged at least one false or misleading claim per day on 91 of his first 99 days" in office. There was no valid reason to revert that edit, Melanie. We need to more closely adhere to policy by using in-text attribution cited to quotes in the source, and to qualify how the media made their determination that he made false, exaggerated or distorted claims. MrX reverted my edit for no good reason and that is disruptive. I'm left with no other option but to call an RfC and get consensus in an effort to be compliant with policy, and that's pretty sad when any editor has to work under such conditions. 06:29, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, one more time: People can say "lie" in an edit summary, that is not a BLP violation. They can say "liar" on the talk page, that is not a BLP violation. We have not said "lie" or "liar" in the article in Misplaced Pages’s voice, and stop talking as if that is what people were proposing to do. The statement you quoted here - "Trump has frequently made false statements in public speeches and remarks" - is totally compliant with NPOV; to leave it out would be a violation of neutrality and balance. It does not "beg the question"; on the contrary it supports it with references that lay out in great and specific detail exactly what statements were false. A similar statement has been confirmed by consensus over and over. Finally, whether anyone "loves" or "hates" Trump is beside the point (I’ve been accused of both). As Misplaced Pages editors we are supposed to edit neutrally based on reliable sources, and you might be surprised (if you would Assume Good Faith) how many of us actually try to do that. Reliable sources mostly say "false and misleading"; that is their consensus reporting; "exaggerated or distorted" is not. Go ahead and call an RfC, if you like, and if you can make a coherent proposal out of what you are requesting comment on. But in the meantime, your proposed edits have been challenged and cannot be restored without consensus. --MelanieN (talk) 07:29, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

You cannot be serious with that purprosed text right? That gives just an astounding amount of weight to a tiny part of his presidency, let alone his whole life. I strongly suggest you withdraw at this point. PackMecEng (talk) 13:56, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

It's something to work with and can be pared down. Much of it is already the content in the section at the presidency article. The only reason many of the other sections in this article are so small is that they are the summaries of spinoff articles.

As far as the "weight" argument, keep in mind that this is arguably one of his most notable character traits often described by RS (narcissim, dishonesty, bullying), and fundamental to all he does, without exception. That makes it important enough to be the largest section, but I don't think that would be a good idea.

A separate article, with a summary and hatnote "main" link here, would be the ideal solution, but the proper way to start that process is with a section that balloons until it creates an undue weight situation, forcing the spinoff. That's the right way to do it.

You mention his presidency, but this is about his whole life. It carries more weight here than in the presidency article. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

"this is arguably one of his most notable character traits (narcissim, dishonesty, bullying" Narcissism is a psychological, mental illness diagnosis and I'm betting you're not qualified to make that diagnosis. Dishonesty is measured by different yardsticks depending on your political preference - be honest, what president hasn't been guilty of it? Bullying is a subjective assessment and also measured by different yardsticks dependent on whatever side of the political fence you reside. Bill Clinton's accusers in the way of sexual abuse, rape, harassment most certainly refer to him as a bully (not to mention he was dishonest enough that he ended up being impeached for it). Aside from all this, WP:UNDUE does apply several times over in regard to your proposed text. And please remember to follow BLP guidelines for discussion on article subjects. If you don't have an official diagnosis to prove Trump is a narcissist, you should strike that comment as it is a violation of BLP guidelines for talk pages. We don't comment on the mental health of article subjects without reliable sources to support such commentary. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:36, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I added "often described by RS" for your sake. We base our content on RS, not (just) on diagnoses. As far as dishonesty, NO, we based such judgements on verified facts, and RS document this in abundance. It's not a partisan issue, unless you make it one. As an editor you need to leave your politics out of this. If you can't see the difference between a false and true statement, then something's wrong. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:41, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Not sure how my push for NPOV and following policy could ever be confused with political bias. I guarantee you, no one here has any clue to my political leanings. Speculation and inaccurate assumption over someone's political ideology is inappropriate and has no place in WP:FOC. I would appreciate it if you would discontinue the attempts at gaslighting, as well, as such behavior is not WP:CIVIL and only serves to degrade discussion that should be productive. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:27, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Winkelvi, you're "not sure"? Maybe this? "Dishonesty is measured by different yardsticks depending on your political preference." Or your whataboutism about Bill Clinton? Stay on-topic. Don't deflect. We don't fall for such things here.

"Different yardsticks"? That's BS, unless you're referring to the editors who keep downplaying Trump's dishonesty by repeating "all politicians lie", when Trump is a complete outlier, with a wide gap between him and all other politicians. They refuse to acknowledge that Trump leads the pack by far, including when compared to other Republicans. Those editors certainly are using a different yardstick based on personal POV (and even, quite literally, that he won the election, so "who cares"). No, he doesn't get a free pass, or get judged by a different affluenza yardstick here.

The "yardstick" we use, and RS use, is exactly the same one applied to all other public persons and politicians. Fact checkers are nonpartisan, with objective yardsticks. They are experts at judging degrees of truth and falsehood, and when they call something a "lie", they aren't describing an "exaggeration" or "misstatement"; it's a "lie". It's not their opinion. It's objective, measurable, fact, not subject to interpretation.

BTW, your political leaning is pretty evident from what you write, how you comment, how you edit, and your fellow travelers. Don't try to hide it or be embarrassed to admit it. It's okay to have such. We all have leanings. Just don't allow it to affect your editing. In your case, and several others, it comes to expression in censorship and seeking to keep out anything negative about Trump, regardless of how well-sourced. If it's any comfort, you aren't the worst around here. Sometimes you shine through and manage to edit against your own POV. Good for you. We should all seek to do that. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:21, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

"Stay on-topic. Don't deflect. We don't fall for such things here." Lol! Thanks for the best laugh over irony and deflection I will likely have all week. Maybe the remainder of the month. Truth is, from getting to know you better through your talk page comments, I'm pretty sure you may have written the manual for deflecting and veering off-topic (your gaslighting efforts are transparent and have not gone unnoticed by others in addition to me, BR). As far as my political leanings -- sorry, but you really have me un-pegged and no clue where I stand politically. Truly, you don't. I know that hive-mindedness and groupthink are the thing these days, but my politics go back to the Eisenhower Administration (yes, I was alive then) when live and let live was an American value, no one really cared what someone else's political leanings were, and along with religion, politics were just not talked about among strangers. I long for those days to return, but probably will not live long enough to every see the pendulum swing that direction again. In Misplaced Pages, my only political leanings are in the way of neutral editing, honesty in content, and NPOV tone in articles - that's it. And really, if Misplaced Pages's policies took WP:OUTING seriously and that policy were complete, trying to guess or claiming one knows the politics of others when they haven't announced it would be a violation. It's no different than trying to guess someone's occupation or where they live. None of it is anyone else's business unless the editor being "investigated" by those opposing their very presence here chose to disclose it. In other words, just stop. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:43, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

TPP withdrawal

Howdy. Back from my wikibreak, I noticed that the US withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership had been removed from the lead paragraph summarizing major foreign policy actions under Trump. I restored it, and Volunteer Marek removed it again (he first removed this on 13 April). I do believe that both withdrawals from TPP and the Paris Accord are significant policy moves and share equal weight. Accordingly, both should be in the lead. Let's discuss. — JFG 10:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Point of clarification: Trump withdrew from the negotiating process of the TPP, which effectively killed the entire agreement and necessitated the creation of an entirely new agreement. Nevertheless, I agree with JFG that this is a major foreign policy action of the Trump administration. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:45, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Exactly, that's why my wording was Trump withdrew the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade negotiations. Looking forward to more comments. — JFG 08:14, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Please weigh in on this, and explain more fully why you reverted. I think JFG's language is absolutely accurate and worthy of its position in the lede. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:51, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Mention of the Russia controversy in the lead

Hey User:Objective3000, the comment says not to remove but there is not problem in doing so; Portal:Donald Trump/Intro works just well without that paragraph. Could you self revert as this is WP:UNDUE and nothing has been proven yet? L293D (☎ • ✎) 18:32, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Seems DUE considering the massive coverage in RS, 22 indictments, and all the connections to the Trump presidential campaign, whether or not direct collusion of Trump will be ultimately shown. O3000 (talk) 18:45, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I see. I'm still not convinced we should mention this incident in the lead though. It already stated in the article. L293D (☎ • ✎) 18:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the lead is supposed to include material already in the article. This material is highly significant.- MrX 🖋 19:18, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Certainly appears significant to the subject of the article, given the number of times he brings it up. O3000 (talk) 21:09, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

FYI: Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article. Further down MOS:LEADREL it says: ...although not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text. How about letting us know exactly what material is being referenced here? 16:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

(When starting a discussion about an editing dispute, please provide contextfor others. The discussion is for everybody, not just the two immediately involved (otherwise it could be done at a user talk page). The edits may not be at the top of the page history for long, and besides, why make people go there to find out what you're talking about? Thanks.) ―Mandruss ☎ 23:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

(L293D, the hidden comment refers to the <section end=Lead text /> tag, not the content preceding it.) ―Mandruss ☎ 23:33, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

O3000 - perhaps I've misunderstood your point, but material is not necessarily DUE simply because it received "massive coverage" and that isn't a good reason why it should remain in the article. You appear to be confusing WP:GNG with WP:V, the latter of which is pretty much all that is required for inclusion of material in an article. In fact, WP:DUE is about the representation of all significant viewpoints in RS, and that it should be represented ...in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. WP:BALANCE states: "...discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news." And you might also check out Misplaced Pages:Citation_overkill#In-article conflict and #Reprints in that same essay. 07:47, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

the latter of which is pretty much all that is required for inclusion of material in an article. - WP:ONUS, part of WP:V, says otherwise. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:45, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

...material is not necessarily DUE simply because it received "massive coverage".... Pretty sure there was an "and" and two additional reasons in my post. O3000 (talk) 12:00, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Hey O3000, I sort of understand this but do we need to have whole paragraph in the lead of the article for this? There is not even a mere mention of Hillary Clinton's e-mail controversy in the lead at Hillary Clinton. And the Hillary's E-mail controversy did receive significant coverage. L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:11, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't oppose having the email thing in Hillary Clinton's lead.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:24, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Last I checked, WP:NPOV still had the sentence, "but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject", ergo, massive coverage means it is due Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:24, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Disagree: (1) "massive coverage" could be the result of reprints of a wire agency report and/or reprints of a primary source article which counts as one source; (2) WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NEWSORG, WP:TOOMUCH, WP:RS AGE and NOTCRYSTALBALL, the latter of which states (my bold underline): Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view. I'm still unsure what material is being discussed in this instance, but I do know that unsupported allegations don't get a free pass just because it's published on 20 different news sites. Our job is to use editorial judgment and discretion when considering biased opinions, unsubstantiated allegations and derogatory material about a BLP, which includes not saying it in WikiVoice, especially when the source is an opinion piece, commentary or analysis. 14:39, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

"massive coverage" could be the result of reprints of a wire agency report…. Well, it could be. But that has nothing to do with this case since it has been weekly, often daily, news for a year in innumerable sources. There have been 22 indictments. The subject of the article talks about it weekly. And we aren’t predicting, forecasting, or speculating about anything. O3000 (talk) 14:46, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Russia controversy in the lead: Arbitrary break

The sixth and last paragraph of the lead says:

"After Trump dismissed FBI Director James Comey in 2017, the Justice Department appointed Robert Mueller as special counsel in an investigation into coordination or links between the Trump campaign and Russian government in connection with Russian interference in the 2016 elections, and related matters. Trump has repeatedly denied any such collusion."

This appears to WP:UNDUE weight to an incident that has yet to be proven. Yes, it has received massive media coverage, but most similar incidents are not even mentioned in the lead for other articles. For example, take Hillary Clinton, there is not even mention of her e-mail controversy, even if it received massive media coverage. So do you want the paragraph to be removed? L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:01, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and for context, I initially removed the content, but was reverted but Objective3000. As I am not allowed to reinstate previously challenged material, I am posting here. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:05, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCONTENT O3000 (talk) 02:06, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

You say it's received "massive" media coverage. Then it's not UNDUE according to our content rules. SPECIFICO talk 02:08, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Emerging from my AP2 avoidance for this one point of reference: Both Clinton articles mention the Lewinsky scandal in the lead and Reagan's mentions Iran-Contra. The Russia investigation, regardless of the outcome, has arguably received more coverage and taken up more press than either of those. No opinion on it in the lead, but I thought it worth mentioning if OTHERSTUFF was going to be brought up. Now back to not commenting on anything AP2 content-wise. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

TonyBallioni, the Lewinsky scandal led to former president Clinton being impeached by the House so yes, it belonged in the lead. We don't see anything about Fast and Furious in the lead of Barrack Obama because...well, I don't quite know. I did not see mention of Iran-Contra in Reagan's lead, but keep in mind, Reagan was admonished for not knowing about it, and the conclusion of the investigations "resulted in fourteen indictments within Reagan's staff, and eleven convictions. The Trump-Russia controversy has produced -0- evidence that Trump himself was involved in any of it, but we have article after article filled with speculation and allegations that he was - apparently a partisan project that wants to impeach the guy. Ok, I'll leave you alone now. 14:59, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

L293D already started a thread above on the exact same subject.Talk:Donald_Trump#revert You don't get to restart the exact same discussion in a new section. Someone uninvolved should hat this. O3000 (talk) 02:27, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll not hat it, but I'll attach it to the existing thread and improve the section headings. @L293D:, please don't create redundant threads, for reasons that should be obvious. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:14, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

North Korea in lead

Yesterday I updated the information about the North Korea situation in the lead section, and Signedzzz reverted, saying "restore neutral, verifiable version". I submit that my version is just as neutral and verifiable, and is more accurate given the current state of the negotiating process. Calling our fellow editors to pick a version. — JFG 08:22, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Version A

He accepted an invitation from North Korean leader Kim Jong-un for direct talks regarding the latter's nuclear weapons program.

Version B

He pressured North Korea over their nuclear weapons program, and scheduled a summit with Kim Jong-un towards denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.

Survey on North Korea status

• Version B – More informative and up to date. Per my original edit summary, Kim-Jong-un didn't wake up one morning and say "gee, I guess I should invite my old chap The Dotard to a treat of noodles." The reality is that US and China applied exceptional pressure on the North Korean economy, so that Kim was forced to come to the negotiating table. In turn, he played the high-ground maneuver by making big friendly gestures to South Korea, and Moon played good cop to Kim by agreeing to take de-escalating steps, and restore sensible relations between the two Koreas. All considered, Trump's bio should mention Trump's role in this process, and not be reduced to the fantasy that NoKo and SoKo did their thing spontaneously, and only then invited US to the ceremony. — JFG 08:28, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• Version A is more neutral and accurate, however it should be reworded to avoid the construct "regarding the latter's nuclear weapons program". Also, we should not rely on Fox News as the only source for this content.- MrX 🖋 12:28, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Prefer that we omit this from the lead until there is some tangible accomplishment. I'm not aware that we have ever put WP:CRYSTAL meeting plans in other presidents articles. - MrX 🖋 11:52, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• B. It's accurate. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 12:37, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
• Version B: um, it's what every single news agency is reporting. Do we have to have an RFC to determine if the sky is blue? – Lionel 13:31, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
• Version A The sky isn’t always blue. I don’t see how anyone can argue with A. I can see neutrality arguments over B. O3000 (talk) 13:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
• Version B is the most up to date and accurate. The wording is improved. Easy choice. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:50, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
• Version B Considerably more accurate, neutral, and per sources. PackMecEng (talk) 13:50, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
• Version B Much more accurate and up to date. L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:12, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
• Version A Besides name-calling, Trump did absolutely nothing to put additional pressure on North Korea that wasn't already being done by previous administrations. It's not at all clear why North Korea suddenly and unexpectedly offered talks with the US. The mainstream media has speculated it may be for many reasons, including (but not limited to) the success of the Winter Olympics collaboration with South Korea and the apparent disaster at the primary North Korean nuclear testing facility. Apart from in fringe right-wing sources, there's very little support for the revisionist nonsense espoused in version B. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:48, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• Version B - Pompeo NBC summarized: We've watched administration apply pressure and now, we've watched come to the negotiating table." 15:09, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

1. RS clearly support B - NYTimes "President Trump and South Korea’s president, Moon Jae-in, say their policy of “maximum pressure” on the government of the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-un, has helped bring him to the bargaining table.", and The Guardian published the announcement by Chung Eui-yong, Seoul’s national security office chief: "I explained to President Trump that his leadership and his maximum pressure policy, together with international solidarity, brought us to this juncture."
2. Washington Post: "Trump has told aides to schedule his summit with Kim in late May or early June, and CIA Director Mike Pompeo made a secret trip about two weeks ago to meet Kim in Pyongyang." Option A is dubious, and fails to mention the basic premise that sanctions/economic pressures are why Kim Jong Un agreed to meet with Trump and would consider dismantling his nuke program. 21:11, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

• Version B seems to be the clear choice. Sir Joseph 15:18, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
• Version B is far more accurate, with a possible addition re: the widespread rumblings of the Nobel Peace Prize for Trump, even from news orgs that serve as the DNC's de facto communications team. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 16:20, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
• Version B--MONGO 17:01, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
• Something else Version B probably gives Trump too much credit by suggesting a causality between the pressure and the summit when there were probably other factors involved (Olympics for example). Version A doesn't give Trump enough credit, suggesting that it was Kim who set things up. I could live with something like having just the second half of B, saying that he set up a summit with Kim, and that drops the vague "applied pressure". ~Awilley (talk) 17:22, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
• The sources clearly say Trump applied pressure and many suggest his efforts were successful, so if we're following RS's option B does a better job of reflecting them. Factchecker_atyourservice 17:44, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
• Weak oppose any of these. I'm not sure it's worth including this in the lead until after the summit actually happens. Both proposals seem acceptable in the meantime, though "pressured" isn't a great choice of word IMO. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
• Version A - B is original research, misappropriating passing mentions of the word "pressure" to spin a narrative no RS has presented, that Trump's clown tactics could influence the NK's to surrender their nukes. SPECIFICO talk 02:15, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Baloney! Mainstream RS have consistently reported for several months that the Trump administration initiated renewed pressure on the North Korean regime, in reaction to the intensification of their nuclear and missile tests in 2017. This coordinated effort with China is unprecedented compared with prior administrations (Clinton, Bush, Obama). What you call "clown tactics" refers I suppose to the name-calling and threats exchanged by the two leaders over Twitter and the NoKo press agency, which are not what is being discussed. Rather, the "pressured" wording refers to the well-documented tightening of economic sanctions, military drills / show of force by US and aliies, and an effective maritime blockade, including the targeting of foreign companies trying to circumvent sanctions. — JFG 08:29, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• Version A. There are only two sentences in the article about the meeting (which may or may not take place, according to developing news), so the current brief mention in the lead is more than sufficient. Also, a A couple of semantic points about objections to your proposed wording:

1. JFG: If you have any RS to support saying that Trump pressured Kim into anything, please present them, because I searched and didn’t find any. The word pressure was used by Trump, Pompeo, and Sanders, and they were quoted verbatim by, for example, Fox News, which is the only source for the two sentences in the article and says that "Trump unexpectedly accepted an offer of talks."
2. If you have any RS to support saying that Trump scheduled the meeting, please present them, because I searched and didn’t find any. When two countries agree on a date and place for a meeting between their heads of state, they scheduled it. Saying that one of the parties scheduled it makes it sound like "be there or else." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 04:59, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

1. We need not search very far to find dozens of mainstream sources mentioning extra pressure initiated by the Trump administration, with help from China. Other editors have already exhibited some recent sources, and here's a sample of older ones (cited in a December 2017 discussion), clearly showing that this "maximum pressure" policy has been ongoing for several months.
2. I have no objection rephrasing the second part to avoid hinting that the US alone did the scheduling. For example, say a summit was scheduled instead of scheduled a summit. Naturally, this part will be updated if/when the summit takes place in a few weeks. — JFG 08:49, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• Version A, since it's much more concise; but as I mentioned below, this is entirely undue to for the lead in the first place. At least currently, the sources don't support the idea that this is a defining achievement of his administration. --Aquillion (talk) 06:15, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussion on North Korea status

The last thing we, as an encyclopedia, should do is claim to know the inner workings of Kim Jong-un's mind. We must stay neutral. O3000 (talk) 16:51, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree. Please point out wherever this occurs so we can deal with it. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:55, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I did. Version B suggests we know why Kim Jong-un made a decision. O3000 (talk) 16:58, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

"pressured North Korea" does not suggest we know why Kim Jong-un made a decision.

In any event, it is pretty ubiquitously stated in the RS's that Trump "pressured" North Korea. Factchecker_atyourservice 17:00, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Putting both some increase in pressure and the summit in the same sentence suggests a connection which is not known. O3000 (talk) 17:03, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Per the sources, which you apparently disagree with? Factchecker_atyourservice 17:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I looked at one of your sources, and you misrepresented it. The source stated in great detail that there exist opposing views on any connection, or if this is a success or failure. We must stay neutral. O3000 (talk) 17:13, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I didn't "misrepresent" any source. That's a dumb accusation and I request you strike it. Factchecker_atyourservice 17:35, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Vox gave two arguments: one that Trump succeeded and the other that he failed. You quoted from one argument and ignored the other suggesting that Vox favored your position. That was a misrepresentation, and I suggest you stop telling other editors to strike their comments. O3000 (talk) 17:39, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

In what fantasy make-believe world is that a "misrepresentation"? Factchecker_atyourservice 17:41, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

In the world of Neutrality. O3000 (talk) 17:45, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

You have no reading comprehension. I didn't say Vox supported Trump, I said they published a POV suggesting Trump's pressure may have worked, and that is a fact.

Moreover you're ignoring all the other sources. Factchecker_atyourservice 17:47, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

You have no reading comprehension. I do not respond to churlish insults. O3000 (talk) 17:54, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Well I had already said I didn't say what you said I said, but you continued insisting I said things I never said. "No reading comprehension" is just a way of summarizing that.

Again, the sources state ubiquitously that Trump pressured North Korea, and many sources credit Trump's pressure for producing a breakthrough. That's objective reality for ya. Factchecker_atyourservice 17:55, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

And you again misrepresent one of your own cites. You cherry-picked a sentence when the article also provides an opposing argument. The article as a whole does not support your position. But, what do I know? I have no reading comprehension. O3000 (talk) 18:14, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@Objective3000: If you cannot understand what you are reading, there are only so many ways to say it, and none of them is going to sound like a compliment.

User:Scjessey said a bunch of patent nonsense utterly misrepresenting RS's, falsely claiming that RS's have not speculated that Trump's "pressure" may have contributed to a diplomatic breakthrough, and falsely claiming that that POV comes from "fringe right-wing sources" .

It is quite easy to see that this is not remotely true, and so I posted a bunch of fact RS coverage referring to Trump's diplomatic pressure campaign and various POVs arguing it was a success or may turn out to be a success.

The RS commentary generally discusses Trump's pressure as a contributing factor, which is what I said, and this was not a misrepresentation in any way. And again: your obsessive fixation on this one non-issue regarding one source completely ignores all the other sourcing. Factchecker_atyourservice 19:08, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@Scjessey: your comment is ignorant and insulting. Please strike it and apologize for your offensive wrongness. It is very well established that Trump has been pressuring NK, , and The New York Times even refers to "levers that Mr. Trump used to pressure Mr. Kim to come to the bargaining table."

The commentary generally says his pressure may have paid off, e.g. the top foreign policy analyst at Brookings Institute clearly suggests Trump's military threats may have influenced Kim's decision. Sources abound, here are a few:

• White House officials are ratcheting up pressure on North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in advance of a summit between him and President Donald Trump in Singapore on June 12, where the two leaders are expected to discuss denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. Both sides say they hope for a breakthrough.
• The Trump administration’s maximum pressure campaign against North Korea is working. That is, if “working” is defined by creating an environment in which Kim Jong Un has great incentive to cooperatively dismantle his nuclear missile program.
• As the U.S.-North Korea summit looms, President Donald Trump's maximum pressure policy on North Korea may be working — thanks to China.
• Republican Sen. Ron Johnson said Sunday that President Donald Trump must continue to ratchet up pressure on North Korea to denuclearize, even as the two countries prepare to meet for talks.
• Trump’s hardline position, combined with increasing economic pressure, sends a message to the North that this time, the United States means business. Trump’s crudeness, on this theory, is useful inasmuch as it signals a break from the past. Factchecker_atyourservice 17:37, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with your conclusion, O3000. The event as reported by NBC indicates the opposite is true, regardless of your opinion about Pompeo or anyone else, which is actually what impedes NPOV, not what JFG has proposed to add per "B". In fact, The Guardian stated: "Administration officials portrayed the invitation as a victory for Trump’s policy of “maximum pressure” and stressed that the US would not relax its stringent sanctions regime before North Korea began disarming." 17:44, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about and haven’t said a word about Pompeo or NBC. And of course the White House said the White House was victorious. I’m sure Kim’s administration said Kim was victorious. How is that meaningful? My “conclusion” is that I have no idea what’s going on and we should remain neutral. O3000 (talk) 18:11, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

My sincere apologies, O3000 - I struck that part of my comment, and will further acknowledge that your responses have actually been collegial, even though I disagree with your position. 18:28, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Objective3000 please point out how version B suggests we know why Kim made a decision. I can't see it. Also please point out in the sentence what decision Kim made that you are referring to. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:45, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Including both the fact that there was pressure and that Kim was willing to talk in the same sentence suggests a connection. After all, the two events are connected by a conjunction. Of course it's not that simple. Pressure has been severe and increasing for a long time. Kim appears to have completed his testing, and his test site is collapsing, and his reactor is on its last legs, and there is a newish SK President who ran on reconciliation with NK, and there was the recent SK Olympics with close NK/SK participance. Besides, Lucy (Kim) has pulled the football several times in the past. What I am saying is I have no idea what goes through the mind of Kim (and not sure I want to see into his mind), and think we should remain neutral -- not suggesting a connection that may or may not be valid and even if valid is but one of many factors. O3000 (talk) 19:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

But, as previously mentioned, isn't this connection made by RS's? E.g. the New York Times piece that refers to "the two levers that Mr. Trump used to pressure Mr. Kim to come to the bargaining table." That's pretty explicit in saying that Trump pressured Kim to talk. The same article also cites "senior officials and analysts" in saying that Trump's military threats contributed to Kim's decision to talk. I'm sure other sources say similar things. Factchecker_atyourservice 19:33, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Incidentally, news just coming out is that NK cancelled a meeting with SK scheduled for today and just threatened to scrap the summit with Trump. RECENTISM raises its head again. We must be careful and avoid overly optimist wording. O3000 (talk) 19:42, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I've been off Misplaced Pages for a few hours and just come back to a shit storm on my talk page about Mike Pompeo. I stand by every comment I have made and make no apology. This article specifically uses the same "Trump's lackey" terminology. In a Google search of news sources, "Trump lackey" gets 1,700 hits, so it is a legitimate description. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:44, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Psssst...Scjessey, the Washington Press is less than unreliable...there is no evidence of fact-checking, who funds the sight, who the editor-in-chief is, and it comes across as pure propaganda (not unlike the WND site). It's not getting good reviews at RS/N, either. You might want to reconsider your position, and stand down considering BLP requires: Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. 03:17, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@Atsme: I would argue The Washington Press is more reliable than an obsequious Trump official. As I've said before, I will not be changing or striking any of my comments. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:33, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Scjessey, considering the following discussion at Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Washington_Press, your argument is absurd. NeilN, as it pertains to discussions about BLP vios and RS, we should probably all take note that The Washington Press is unreliable, and as one admin said in the RS/N discussion, Fake news site is not an unreasonable description. 14:55, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@Atsme: I'm not saying The Washington Press is reliable. I'm saying it is more reliable than one of Trump's sycophants. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:16, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok but your other comments about "revisionist nonsense" and "fringe right-wing sources" were just ignorant and insulting and I still request you strike them. Factchecker_atyourservice 19:47, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with your opinion. I think the notion that North Korea's actions are based on Trump's actions is absurd. I will not be changing anything, and you are simply wasting everyone's time by perpetuating the mock outrage, which is what this really is, isn't it? -- Scjessey (talk) 20:04, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@Scjessey: Respectfully, what really sounds "absurd" is your opinion that Kim's recent moves were independent from Trump's approach to the issue. South Korean officials up to President Moon have repeatedly credited the Trump administration, and Trump personally, for forcing Kim to pivot towards friendly gestures and détente with SoKo. Don't tell me that was just more flattery. And yes, calling my edit "revisionist nonsense" is borderline PA; given our usual good-spirited relations, I would appreciate either a strike or an apology. — JFG 09:01, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@JFG: It's blindingly obvious SK officials are stroking Trump's ego, because everyone on this planet knows that Trump will always respond positively to an ego massage. I will not be changing or striking any of my comments, and this is my last comment on the matter. We'll just have to agree to disagree. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:33, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

We have two leaders that are known for making ultimata and switching back and forth on various issues. Today, NK has threatened to withdraw from the summit. I imagine this will switch back and forth. I don’t see why we should include anything at all about this in the lede for the DJT article, at least until the summit occurs. It certainly belongs in an article about N. Korea. WP:RECENTISM WP:NOTNEWS. O3000 (talk) 21:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• This is hilarious. This "pressuring" is really in the lead of his biography? And what's so cute is that we're talking about the person who called Kim Jong Un "honorable" and "nice" and "excellent", in the most sycophantic manner you can imagine--are we making up for that in our encyclopedia by saying "oh yeah Donald pressured them"? I came up with a fun Google search, "kim jong un plays Trump", and the Irish Times, Bloomberg, Vanity Fair, the Washington Post, and CNBC are feeling me. In other words: if y'all want to stay so close on the news, and inject the POV terminology you see in the headlines, you should be prepared for other headlines too. I propose "in April and May 2018, Trump's vanity was stroked to such an extent that he allowed himself to be played like Nero's fiddle and agreed to a meeting with a dictator whom Trump had thanked after said dictator graciously didn't execute American citizens captured for the purpose"--but I'm open to discussion. Or you just play it straight and keep it factual. Drmies (talk) 01:19, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Drmies, all that could be true and Kim has played this game before, as have his predecessors. Nevertheless, there is significantly more forward progress going on now in the quest to get NK to abandon their missle and nuclear weapon development than I ever saw when Obama was President. Could be pressure was applied at the most opportune time (nuclear test mishap, heavy sanctions taking a big toll, etc.) But correct that we should likely wait and see how this ends before we jump to any conclusions about what happened and who can be blamed or thanked.--MONGO 01:33, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't object to not adding another thing to anything Trump until his term is over. Editors who want to be journalists can knock themselves out over at WikiTribune. 01:40, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussion of process RE: informal polls after routine reverts

I am copying several posts that Mandruss hatted. Arguably they didn't belong in their former location, thank you Mandrus! But they are relevant to how we do business on this talk page, so I have unhatted and presented them below

SPECIFICO talk 02:13, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

• This was reverted because it is no good. It's flippant, unsupported original research, it promotes a narrative that's already been rejected after a lot of wasted discussion over the past year or so, and it is contradicted by the overwhelming weight of RS accounts of these developments. Cloaking a bad edit in a welter of trite cliche and racial slurring about "noodles" does not help talk page discussion. It's not necessary to fight tooth-and-nail with these "informal polls" on every bad edit that gets reverted. I suggest OP withdraw this section and move on to other issues. SPECIFICO talk 12:10, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• This wasn't a fight until you tried to make it one. That's the pattern, I've noticed. Any editor may dispute any edit they wish and start any discussion they wish. That's what this page is for. If you wish to file some kind of disruption or POV-pushing complaint, AE is that way (as I believe I've told you before); otherwise I would appreciate you altering your approach to opposing editors and JFG in particular. Your persistent sniping is unhelpful. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:23, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• Mandruss, you know very well that these "informal polls" serve no purpose in our WP process. They are not dispositive, as an RfC would be, and they promote endless tail-chasing. And what comes of it? Half the time there's then dispute over what the poll decided. Then what? If that's resolved it goes on the meaningless "consensus list" atop the article, another stupid idea. When an edit is reverted, it's often a good idea simply to move on to other matters. If there were overwhelming support for the Korea version B, it would have emerged without the pouty-faced cute racist slur about noodles and the next 2 weeks of POV A-B that is now set in motion. So I hope you'll reconsider your pattern recognition proclivities and expertise. Cheerio what au revoir. SPECIFICO talk 13:06, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• Many durable consensuses have been established by these surveys which you say serve no purpose. And there is fairly wide agreement that the consensus list has been a benefit to this article, saving us from rehashing the same issues over and over again because it's too much trouble to hunt down the supporting discussions and argue about whether they show an actual consensus. I'm not aware of a single regular editor here who shares your view on that. So please, take note of the fact that you have little or no support for your views, and don't present them as fact. I'm collapsing this as off topic and unconstructive. Feel free to post a !vote below and/or continue this discussion on my UTP. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:22, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments on this talk page and WP:BLPTALK

WP:BLPTALK states, "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate." and editors are arguing that some of their comments are related to making content choices. However the "not related to making content choices" exception does not mean that editors are free to denigrate living people if they can somehow tie it to content. For example, saying that "x is a pathological liar and we shouldn't give her lies any credence" will get you sanctioned. Do the extra work, provide a reliable source that says "x is a habitual liar whose statements are often false", and refrain from giving the impression that you are offering a personal opinion of the subject. If necessary, I am prepared to add a new AE restriction to that effect but I hope it won't come to that. --NeilN 21:26, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: In that case, BLPTALK seriously needs clarifying, and that is not wikilawyering but common sense. Unless my vision is even worse than I thought, there is nothing at BLPTALK that states or implies what you said above. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:34, 15 May 2018 (

Thank you for that, NeilN. That was my main concern, as the argument was being made that since a borderline fake-news website (Washington Press) attacked a living person, then somehow it's acceptable for us to do it as well (and the source didn't even use the same language). When I see "related to making content choices," I think in terms of "We should say this, because the source says this...but the source doesn't say that" sort of thing. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 21:41, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Mandruss, I believe that common sense dictates that an editor can't say "X is a pedophile and we should add that to the article" with no sources and claim that BLP doesn't apply because the comment relates to content. I freely acknowledge that the interpretation I stated above may be more restrictive than usual but I'm prepared to implement that as a AE restriction if need be. --NeilN 21:56, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: As written, the policy sets two separate conditions that must be met for a comment to be a violation. (1) Unsourced or poorly sourced. (2) Not related to making content choices. They are joined by the logical operator AND, not OR. I am finding it extremely difficult for my "common sense" to override what the thing actually says. What you, I, or anybody else feels it should say is beside the point for the purposes of editor behavior and enforcement. If you have the authority to unilaterally implement it as an AE restriction separate from policy, that would be an improvement over the status quo. At least the expectations would be clear. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:10, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@Mandruss: This conversation should probably be continued at Misplaced Pages talk:Biographies of living persons but "OR" probably isn't going to work. We're not going to sanction two editors having a casual argument about what was X's best movie on one of their talk pages. --NeilN 22:19, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

The North Korea talks are WP:UNDUE for the lead.

The above discussion seems to have gotten derailed into the exact wording for them, so I think we need to tackle this aspect more directly, especially given this news story. A summit that has not yet occurred and which, in fact, may now not occur at all is definitely undue for the lead. (If it is left in the lead, we would need to make it clear that North Korea has threatened to pull out - but the uncertainty is probably part of the reason why a speculative meeting doesn't belong in the lead in the first place, since at the moment it isn't particularly significant relative to the rest of the article.) We can always restore it to the lead if / when it occurs, assuming the results are significant enough to go in the lead of a president (not at all a given.) --Aquillion (talk) 03:20, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

North Korea has been mentioned in the lead since December 2017, and the "pressured" wording has been stable since 14 January 2018 until deleted on April 14. You'd need a pretty strong editor consensus to remove it now. The back-and-forth posturing about which side gave up leverage or stood firm, and whether the summit will indeed take place, are too much detail for the lead. — JFG 09:16, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Kim shocks world with bomb and missile tests. Hawaiians panic! Ivavka chases biz deals in China. Rockets threaten Japan. NY Post says Trump is pressing NK. That mule has left the "stable". SPECIFICO talk 09:53, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, then perhaps it belongs in the lead of Kim Jong-un or Mule Train. In related observations, has anyone noticed that the lead photo on Kim Jong-un shows dear leader in front of what appears to be a nuclear explosion?- MrX 🖋 11:35, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Kim has Trump scared silly. Pressuring him into erratic tweeting and grasping at "overtures" that US intelligence learned years ago are empty snares. If anything, RS tell us that Trump pressured himself into taking the bait. SPECIFICO talk 11:39, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm seeing a pretty strong consensus to remove it right now. I think it's notable that only a single person in this discussion has unequivocally and directly argued that it's WP:DUE (notably, you yourself are not yet making that argument, merely saying that it's been there for a while - which I take to be an implicit concession that the argument that it is WP:DUE for the lead is otherwise weak.) If you think it's WP:DUE for the lead, go ahead and present your reasons, but I'm noticeably not seeing them now. It's not an iconic achievement or policy position, merely one of the administration's innumerable stances coupled with some speculative discussion of a potential upcoming meeting. It's worth mentioning on the administration article, or perhaps with a sentence or two in the body here, but it obviously falls far short of the standard needed for inclusion in the lead of Trump's personal article, and the fact that it was left there seems to me to be an accident that we are now (fortunately) in a position to correct. --Aquillion (talk) 06:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I have been thinking the same thing as Aquillion. Until there is some tangible outcome from this meeting (if it even happens), I don't think it belongs in the lead. The amount of time it has been in the lead, or the "stability" of the wording, are not really valid considerations. I'm not aware that we have ever put WP:CRYSTAL meeting plans in other president articles.- MrX 🖋 11:26, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Well yes, aside from mocking the absurd claim that Trump "pressured" his puppeteer Kim, it should be stated plainly that this bit is false, ill-sourced, and undue for the lead. SPECIFICO talk 11:41, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree. This isn’t even the presidential article. One of the things Trump the person is most known for can’t be a meeting that may or may not happen, and if it happens, may or may not result in significance. O3000 (talk) 11:43, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Article talk pages are not the place to express your opinion that mainstream sources are wrong. Even your own user talk isn't a good place for it. Facebook is a better bet. Factchecker_atyourservice 19:06, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Being new to this page, I had to do some digging into the archives. Going to take up some space on this Talk page, with my apologies to the editors who are familiar with this:

• On Dec 11, 2017, Galobtter added "pressured North Korea to reverse the acceleration of their missile tests and nuclear program" per talk page proposal by Anythingyouwant (814842058)
• A few hours later, JFG changed the text to "pressured North Korea over the acceleration of their missile tests and nuclear program" (814861774)

I'm wondering why the addition to the lead wasn't objected to at the time because IMO the body of the article at the time didn't support either version; the contents were about NK actions and Trump's hopes and rhetoric.

North Korea became a major issue in mid-2017. During the campaign and the early months of his presidency, Trump had hoped that China would help to rein in North Korea's nuclear ambitions and missile tests. However, North Korea accelerated its missile testing, leading to an increase in tensions in April 2017. In July, the country tested two long-range missiles identified by Western observers as intercontinental ballistic missiles, potentially capable of reaching Alaska, Hawaii, and the U.S. mainland. In August, Trump dramatically escalated his rhetoric against North Korea, warning that further provocation against the U.S. will be met with "fire and fury like the world has never seen." North Korean leader Kim Jong-un then threatened to direct the country's next missile test toward Guam. Trump responded that if North Korea took steps to attack Guam, "hings happen to them like they never thought possible."

And the body of the article still doesn't support either version. The last sentence was replaced by the two sentences I bolded below, i.e., Trump warning of "strong retaliation" and the SK president doing some pandering:

North Korea became a major issue in mid-2017. During the campaign and the early months of his presidency, Trump had hoped that China would help to rein in North Korea's nuclear ambitions and missile tests. However, North Korea accelerated their missile and nuclear tests, leading to increased tension. In July, the country tested two long-range missiles identified by Western observers as intercontinental ballistic missiles, potentially capable of reaching Alaska, Hawaii, and the U.S. mainland. In August, Trump dramatically escalated his rhetoric against North Korea, warning that further provocation against the U.S. will be met with "fire and fury like the world has never seen." North Korean leader Kim Jong-un then threatened to direct the country's next missile test toward Guam. Trump responded that if North Korea took steps to attack Guam, "hings happen to them like they never thought possible." Trump warned Kim of strong retaliation if North Korea attacked Guam or U.S. allies. In January 2018, South Korean president Moon Jae-in praised Trump's tough stance toward the North, stating that Trump deserved "big" credit for his efforts in facilitating talks between North and South Korea. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:58, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I overlooked the last paragraph which IMO needs to be deleted: In March 2018, the White House confirmed that President Trump would accept a meeting invitation from Kim Jong-un. The two will meet by May. Press secretary Sarah Sanders said that "in the meantime, all sanctions and maximum pressure must remain." He has accepted, they won't be meeting in May, and why is Sanders being quoted here? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:12, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• Not undue at all. NK has been a prime focus of Trumps foreign affairs and mentioning that his administration has applied pressure is not UNDUE. per the references provided by JFG in above threads, this matter should be mentioned in brief and written in summary style in the article itself.--MONGO 14:25, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• Those references are over whether sources have used the word "pressure". Whether it's due to mention NK in the lead at all is a totally different question - putting it there is putting a tentative future meeting, or some discussion of the Trump administration's vague "stance" on NK, on par with major policy changes such as withdrawing from the Paris agreement. I don't feel that we have the sources to support the idea that it's a signature accomplishment or action by the Trump administration on that level, at least not so far. This is Trump's personal article, not the one on his administration, so the standard for inclusion in the lead here is extremely high - speculative discussion about future meetings or vague talk about his "stance" towards North Korea obviously doesn't meet the required standard. --Aquillion (talk) 06:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• That is absolutely right. Mentioning the NK talks in the lead is a classic example of WP:RECENTISM and WP:SPECULATION. It does not belong. Yet. If the talks ever happen, and something great comes from them, or something terrible, THEN they would belong in the lead. HiLo48 (talk) 06:32, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Swedish - false statement

JFG removed this with the editorial comment that it's a claim Trump's father first made and that it's undue for Trump's biography: "Until 1990, Trump claimed that his paternal grandfather had emigrated to America from Sweden while his German-born grandmother was living across the street until her death in 1966; (1) he wrote in his 1987 bestseller "The Art of the Deal" that his grandfather emigrated to America "from Sweden as a child." (1, 2, 3, 4) (my edit in the article contained the wrong url to the New Yorker article; I've corrected it here). I say it's due because DJT was using it for decades, including in his book "Art of the Deal", knowing it to be false (has it been corrected in later editions?), and we shouldn't restrict "False statements" to those made during his tenure as president. Thoughts? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 03:57, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

The family lie, repeated for a couple generations. It's been a fundamental part of the family's identity. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Since Trump famously attacks Elizabeth Warren for allegedly misrepresenting her ancestry, it would seem this sort of thing is biographically significant. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:12, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, RS do call out that hypocrisy: CNN, Axios, BuzzFeed, The Week, IJR, The Atlantic, Chicago Tribune, Time, and of course many RS just about the claim, like Daily Beast. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:07, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Scjessey How is that attacking warren makes this other thing becomes biographically significant? Trump portrays she cheated into college and job benefits by falsely claiming American Indian heritage; that seems WP:OFFTOPIC of his bio as being insignificant to his life. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:56, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

@Markbassett: Because, as shown by BullRangifer, many of the reliable sources talking about the Swedish ancestry claim also mention Trump's attacks on Warren and the resulting hypocrisy. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:57, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Scjessey lying to avoid embarasment versus lying for personal gain ... not the same in Ethics of lying, and way too involved for here. Never mind it. Just take it as presumed other stuff exists. Markbassett (talk) 18:05, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

It would be helpful to provide a link to the edit. I notice that the text quoted omits that Fred Trump claimed Swedish ancestry because of anti-German sentiment, which is mentioned in the source. By only telling half the truth, the text is misleading. That's ironic when accusing the subject of dishonesty. And Warren's article is irrelevant. TFD (talk) 10:41, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

My edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Donald_Trump&oldid=841647106. JFG's removal: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Donald_Trump&oldid=841763017. Does it matter that his father started the falsehood? This article is not about him. Trump kept it going, e.g., in a magazine article in 1984 and in his 1987 book. I found another RS where his cousin is quoted as saying that father and son discussed whether to continue. So Dad might not have liked it but by age 40 Trump should have grown a pair. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:02, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Amend consensus item 2, unlink New York City in the infobox

Almost trivial (sorry). Wouldn't need prior consensus but for the existing consensus item. Propose amending #Current consensus item 2 to unlink "New York City" in the infobox. This is not an invitation to revisit the rest of that consensus, please stay on topic.

• Support as proposer per WP:OVERLINK, which lists New York City as one of the examples of things that don't need linking, and has done since 1 August 2016 without challenge. That was 3+1⁄2 months before the consensus 2 discussion and we just missed it. Overlinking bad. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:47, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support - overlinking...a pet peeve for many. 17:24, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Real estate - Swifton Village, Cincinnati

Galobtter I think the Cincinnati Enquirer converted the occupancy rates they reported in their 2002 article (400 rented, 800 vacant) to percentages in their 2016 article which I removed because it was based largely on Trump's claims at Ohio campaign events and in "Art of the Deal", and also because, 14 years later, the Swifton Village maintenance man's memories had shifted a bit. I kept the wording "100%", though, because in 2002 the maintenance man also said, "In less than two years, there wasn't a vacancy." Maybe changing the wording to "boosted the occupancy rate to full" might be better? I wasn't too happy with "revitalizing" either because the sources don't actually mention more than a renovation but they probably spent big bucks on attracting tenants, as well, so I left it. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:03, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

• Perhaps, I just added the source as if the text is going to be "100%" sourcing should remain to support that. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:05, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

So you would have no objection to me removing the source again and using "full" instead of "100%"? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:10, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:17, 20 May 2018 (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
• Unknown-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 articles that use American English
• Former good article nominees
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment