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

The sentence In 2000, Trump unsuccessfully campaigned for the Reform Party nomination for president. has re-entered the lead, after what appeared to be a consensus not to include it in the lede at Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_72#2000_presidential_campaign (January 2018). As Plumber ( talk · contribs) has repeatedly re-added this material, I'm taking the liberty to remove it. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 17:52, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

More [1] SPECIFICO talk 23:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, but not worthy here, if anywhere in WP. O3000 ( talk) 00:01, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

This is a developing story, one of a long list of incidents in which misinformation and undue praise were deemed necessary by individuals who had official interactions with Trump. I bring it to the talk page now in the hope that in the future editors will be less credulous of obviously anomalous behavior such as was discussed in great length on the occasion of Jackson's bizarre charade following POTUS annual check-up. SPECIFICO talk 00:10, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Nothing worthy on inclusion in an encyclopedia article. It's inclusion would be politically motivated. Sovietmessiah ( talk) 04:54, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

But the point of that story is that the health report was politically motivated. Should we remove comment on the health report for that reason? HiLo48 ( talk) 06:03, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Quite to the contrary, the firs round of editors who crafted the text relating Jackson's ridiculous post-checkup performance bought his act hook line and sinker. That's not NPOV and it's not encyclopedic. Fortunately for Wikipedia, it now should be obvious that article text that blindly accepts Jackson's pandering performance needs revision. SPECIFICO talk 12:53, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

It's an opinion piece by a restaraunt critic. If the piece isn't encyclopedic or worthy of inclusion, then it's UNDUE in this article. Perhaps if the author's opinion turns out to be correct after Jackson has served, then it will be DUE. Just wanting to add opinions/predictions like this one are what make me ^{cover your eyes O3000} *sigh*. ^{Atsme 📞 📧} 14:50, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

You best redact your smear of Mr. Bruni. Some folks might believe you. SPECIFICO talk 15:42, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I may not feel this is DUE; but Bruni has been a White House correspondent, a war correspondent, chief of the NYTimes Rome bureau and has written three NYTimes best sellers. I really don’t think it appropriate to label him just as a restaurant critic. O3000 ( talk) 15:53, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

That would be a good lead in for in text attribution "Former restaurant critic and White House correspondent Frank Bruni said..." PackMecEng ( talk) 16:08, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, there is no smearing going on - unless you're referring to the material you want to add to the Trump bio. And why do you think working as a restaurant critic is a "smear"? And why are you being so defensive? You're arguing over whether or not an opinion that is nothing more than a prediction and criticism of a very capable individual as a potential failure before he's even had a chance. That is what I consider pointless criticism based on WP:CRYSTALBALL. Please do not hat discussion just based on IDONTLIKEIT. This discussion is highly relevant to your proposal. ^{Adding: WP:NOTNEWS - it's policy...abide by it. Atsme 📞 📧} 16:54, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

PS: I just now supported my statement by adding the NYTimes source that states he was the chief restaurant critic, which I mentioned instead of the others for brevity and because he was the "chief". ^{Atsme 📞 📧} 17:18, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

In speaking about a political issue, we don’t say “A saxophonist said:…." when refering to President Clinton. Bruni has an established career in politics including a stint as NYTimes White House correspondent and author of a best seller on George Bush. Why would you say: “It's an opinion piece by a restaraunt critic?” Clearly your attempt was to belittle his experience related to the subject. O3000 ( talk) 17:37, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

You are incorrect, O3000 - you are relentlessly misrepresenting what I've said. Please stop - the diffs that clearly demonstrate your misrepresentations are accumulating through no fault of my own. ^{Atsme 📞 📧} 23:59, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

How can I misrepresent what you said when I quoted it directly? This is the third time in a couple days that you have falsely accused me of misrepresenting your edits. And, I’m not the only one that you accuse of such. Your accusations are totally false and gross violations of CIV and BATTLEGROUND. And what's really absurd is that I stated that I'm not even in favor of adding this. I'm agreeing with your position. Yet, you still insist on making obviously false accusations. O3000 ( talk) 00:10, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Atsme, User:Objective3000 - mentions of WP:DUE bring to mind that this section is missing the larger WP:WEIGHT of health coverage before the exam, of late 2017 many many MANY pieces floating (false) speculations about Trumps health or fitness to serve. To properly serve WP:DUE seems there should be mention of them. I'd suggest just before the 2018 Ronny Jackson mention as it would also give context to the exam and why he was getting odd or leading reporter questions. Would it be better given as an overall summary or as several lines for the slightly varying phrasings of diet/health/mental state ? e.g. dailystar "Is Donald Trump ill?", Independent "Aides terrified over Presidents mental health", Esquire "Is Donald Trump crazy" book release "Dangerous case of Donald Trump", Mirror "Fresh concerns over Donald Trump's health after uses both hands for glass of water", Vice "13 town halls on Trumps mental health", USA Today "President Donald Trump: How is his health", NBC news "Donald Trumps mental health", Chicago Tribune "Donald Trumps diet is bad for Americas health", the August bill in the house that would require Trump to undergo testing (Zoe Lofgren D-CA), Mens Health "Is Donald Trump the least fit President in Generations", NewsMax "Diet Coke habit prompts Doctors warnings".

Though I'm also thinking this all might be better at the Presidency article as examples of media coverage as showing typical representations in DUE weight seems the obligation. (Negativity and hyper focus of being under microscope and any possible negative interpretation having ready play in today's internet bubble-markets seems the situation, but simply representing the coverage is whats sought.) Thoughts ? Cheers Markbassett ( talk) 00:55, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Most of the sources you mentioned are not RS. It’s not our responsibility to counter tabloid crap. There have been some RS comments on possible health concerns of both candidates, mostly during the election. Hardly surprising given their age, and claims by various people. Not certain what you are proposing. But, as far as I know, neither the WH doctor or a candidate's doctor are required to be fully forthcoming about a medical report. And, we shouldn’t touch armchair diagnoses – particularly in the mental arena. O3000 ( talk) 01:07, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

O3000 - BBC, NBC, USAToday, Reuters, Chicago Tribune, House .gov site, etcetera are RS. Though it is kind of tabloidish rumor-mongering I'm struggling with if the heavy WP:WEIGHT of coverage regarding health would be better said as an overall or as different sub-topics. And of course to do so without crossing | Consensus 21 to omit any opinions of his psychology by outsiders. Cheers Markbassett ( talk) 03:20, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

His alleged psychology. SPECIFICO talk 03:41, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

User:SPECIFICO - You did not propose content, but note that is an NYT Opinion rant from someone not medically qualified nor really about Trump so will not pass as an WP:RS for the Trump BLP in general or the Trump health report specifically. Bruni is also not prominent enough in his own right to make his rant have coverage WP:WEIGHT. Cheers Markbassett ( talk) 23:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

One needn't be an MD to recognize when a competent MD is acting like a buffoon. SPECIFICO talk 00:33, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

User:SPECIFICO To corect your entering view : This is more a recurring story, one of a long list of incidents in which misinformation and undue ranting were deemed necessary by individuals who had media access. Your bringing it to the talk page hopefully assures that in the future editors will be less credulous of obviously anomalous behavior such as was discussed in great length on the occasion of media circus prior to POTUS annual check-up. Really, I take the daily rant at Trump or Ivanka wearing a pantsuit or Melania wearing high high heels as comforting that they do not have any actual disaster to cover so are doing filler. But every mornings blurb are just not all going to be WP material. Over & out Markbassett ( talk) 01:08, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about Trump's pant suit or whatnot. Maybe you read too many HuffPo or Rachel Maddow blog pieces. Actually I think Trump's suits are rather well-made. He and Manafort are two of the best dressed public figures we've had in quite a while. SPECIFICO talk 01:15, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

You can be "best dressed" and health issues. The first in an opinion or a subjective award, but the other is a fact if true. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 19:09, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

?? Mark Bassett seemed to be saying that the principal criticisms of the Trump presidency relate to trivia and tabloid exposes of irrelevant factors. I presume you agree with me that is counterfactual. I wasn't able to relate your comment to the claim that because we are not MD's we can't see that Jackson was acting inappropriately at the press extravaganza celebrating Trump's pinch 'n' poke at Walter Reed. SPECIFICO talk 19:25, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

User:SPECIFICO I would say again that your original post needed redirection -- this Ronny Jackson opinion piece is one of the significant percentage of coverage for the Trump White House which is on trivia or criticism and speculation over trivia, misinformation and ranting or snarky humor and general media circuses that are over nothing much. (Particularly on the internet, fad stories on a given day about Melania wore high heels, or that Ivanka wore a pantsuit, or that Donald took a sip of water using both hands, or that his hair was flipped over by the wind, or about a tweet typo Covfefe, or about counting things the opinion writer thinks are bad or false in his latest speech or since inauguration.) Your hope that future editors will be less credulous I suggest be less credulous about individual media pieces. If it's not picked up by a lot of others it will not have WP:WEIGHT for here. I'd prefer it should be 'had major effect on his life' to go into BLP. In the meanwhile - I think this thread is done, yes ? Markbassett ( talk) 04:16, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I am guessing you are not aware of the previous discussions of this. My view is that the Ronny Jackson show doesn't belong in the bio article. It might be DUE in the Presidency article. However at the time of that event, various editors were so thrilled by Doc's performance that they included it here, without the context that it was political clowning and not medical information. Of course if Trump does actually live to 200 minus a cheeseburger, that view is subject to revision. So perhaps you and I do not disagree. How would you feel about deleting the last sentence that deals with the brain probe, since it's basically a response to a straw man unstated presumption that POTUS is malfunctioning? Whether to add that to the Presidency article (if it's not already there) is a separate issue, I think. SPECIFICO talk 11:31, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, persistence that is met with fatigue and silence does not equal acquiescence. Have you thought about giving it a rest? When threads get this long and convoluted, dropped and restarted, it's difficult for people working 55+ hours a week to keep track of what, precisely, you want.

If I recall correctly, this all began with a proposal to add a single sentence describing the physician's gushing manner of describing Trump's health. If that's what this is still about, we need encyclopedic language if we are to include this. The adjective(s) you suggest we use are important here. Fawning? Gushing? Lavish? Over-the-top?

Clearly, Jackson's press conference garnered press attention and critical commentary for his tone. But then, the popular press (read: advertisers) treat Trump and his wife far differently than the Obamas; Michele was on the cover of pretty much every woman's magazine at the checkout line whereas Melania, who is indisputably a very attractive fist lady and would normally be expected to frequently grace magazine covers is as rare as hen's teeth at the checkout stand. So if we are to buy into the idea that “boat loads of press coverage necessarily equals an encyclopedic topic that must be covered,” then lay it on us please, once again; what, exactly, in example text are you proposing? Greg L ( talk) 07:42, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Greg, your essay has nothing to do with what I have said or the topic at hand. My proposal would be to reduce the undue coverage in this article by removing the bit about the cognitive function exam. What do you think? SPECIFICO talk 12:39, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Your response at first seemed reality-challenged in light of how you started this thread, which quoted a NY Times op-ed piece as follows:

I note this in particular: This is a developing story, one of a long list of incidents in which misinformation and undue praise were deemed necessary by individuals who had official interactions with Trump. That's the problem with long threads that pop up over and over, assuming people can remember what's on your mind. It happens on Wikipedia. Your mentioning of Jackson's bizarre charade didn’t help things either.

So it appears then that you object to where we state as follows:

I agree with what the others, particularly Markbassett, wrote here. My own two cents are this: An op-ed piece by a restaurant and movie critic, who voted for Hillary in 2016 (and his “voice caught” and “eyes grew wet” as he recounted the experience of voting to his mother) and who objected to the effusive manner by which an experienced physician (and rear admiral in the U.S. Navy) delivered an objective fact (a test result) does not impeach the objective fact; scoring 30/30 on the MCA test is a rather binary conclusion that means Trump has well functioning cognition.

That the POTUS has no impairments with the cognitive functions he uses to formulate thought is an altogether different issue from the thoughts he formulates, which are often controversial and polarizing. But that’s all an entirely different issue from what’s you’re complaining about; the two sentences are true according to the RSs, and are on-point. Greg L ( talk) 17:10, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that particular source adds much, but we can find better sources than it, surely? If we're talking about mental health, this seems more useful - a bestselling book written by multiple experts in the field. If we're talking about Ronny Jackson's physical evaluation, here's an academic paper on the subject, which concludes that "To answer the question in the title, “Is Trump's Cardiovascular Health ‘Excellent’ or are there ‘Serious Heart Concerns’?”, Mr. Trump's cardiovascular health (risk profile) was excellent for a man his age in 2016 but worsened by 2018." -- Aquillion ( talk) 20:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Greg, there are many other sources that discuss the preposterous and unprecedented extent of Jackson's fawning, extra-medical, dissembling sycophancy. My view about the cognitive test is that it would not have been given (if indeed it was) except for the opportunity to rebut the sort of press speculation that is not of itself encyclopedic. So including the test results, unless we also discuss that background, insinuates an inference about the reason for the test. And I don't think that press speculation belongs in this article, so I think the test and purported results should be removed. SPECIFICO talk 20:34, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

We have more than just press speculation, though, don't we? In addition to the book I linked above, take a look at this, which highlights it and notes both the conclusions and the limitations of the MoCA test. I think that the book combined with that paper is sufficient to devote a sentence to the concerns about his mental health, to note the test, and finally to note the test's limitations. Additional coverage of it is here, here, here, here, and here. I think we should absolutely note the concerns about his mental health (but cite them to better sources than op-eds and to WP:PRIMARY press speculation.) Then we can mention the test score and the discussion of what it means, probably with one sentence for each of those three points. -- Aquillion ( talk) 21:59, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

This would be a valid alternative. To explain to our readers why Trump requested the exam (do RS in fact make the connection?) and tie it to the bit that's in the article. I think we also need to help our readers evaluate whether any of Jackson's public display was credible or whether the whole thing was done to please Trump and quash concern. As to whether it belongs in this bio or in the Presidency article, that's another question we should eventually address. SPECIFICO talk 22:23, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Both you guys are coming perilously close to original research; it’s as if you start with the assumption that “Trump says things that are shockingly non-politically correct so he must be nuts, so it’s our duty as volunteer wikipedians to get the Truth®™© out.” The trouble with pretending wikipedians like you and I are muckraking journalists bravely deciding what the citizens really need to hear is that such a process on Wikipedia necessarily introduces biases. Aquillion provided this link to the Vox, which actually concluded the article with this:

That's enough said about that. Greg L ( talk) 00:40, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Feels like you are not paying attention Greg. My proposal was to remove the whole thing precisely because it refers to an unwarranted and undocumented suspicion that Trump is impaired. No OR in that. Then you quote Dr. Friedman, who supports my view. So do you agree we can remove the sentence about cognitive function testing, etc? SPECIFICO talk 00:45, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I understand precisely what you are proposing. The totality of quotes from Dr. Friedman is shown above in my cquote; I wouldn’t characterize what he said as equaling what you have been saying here—not by any stretch. To be clear, the statement in the article with which you disagree and want removed, is as follows:

Your question is this: “So do you agree we can remove the sentence about cognitive function testing, etc?”. My answer is, no. I am in general agreement with what Markbassett and Atsme have stated above. For some reason, Trump perceived the need to prove his mental faculties, asked for a cognition test, received one, scored 30/30, and a Navy rear admiral and experienced physician attested as much a press conference. Your arguments here questioning the legitimacy of that statement because of “Jackson's bizarre charade”—and even whether the the test was given at all—do not find traction with me. Greg L ( talk) 03:07, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

This discussion is fascinating, but I'm not sure why we need to mention Trump's physical at all in the article. I doubt any other biographies would include information on a physical claiming that the person is healthy. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 05:03, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

In a related new story [3]. But, I agree with Power that none of this belongs in the article. O3000 ( talk) 18:07, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

OK. So can we remove the 2018 exam altogether? SPECIFICO talk 03:30, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm thinking this must be what bludgeoning ⚒ looks like, SPECIFICO. Why are you so fixated on his health? He hasn't fallen once that we know of, he hasn't needed assistance up or down stairs, he manages to squeeze his fat arse into a limo without assistance, and he's been dancing with the porn stars so he's clearly not dead, yet. I'd say the discussion is over - done - fini....💤😴🛌. ^{Atsme 📞 📧} 01:29, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Think again. Stay on topic. "Over" for you, yes -- if you have nothing constructive or responsive to add to the thread. Doc says take 2 aspirin and work on something else. SPECIFICO talk 03:20, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

This has been bugging me for a while, and I am very close to opening a discussion at WP:RSN. A lot of controversy has been created at one time or another by claims made by Trump on one subject or another. A few spots above this thread is one where his alleged wealth was being discussed and a lot of the figures cited came back to claims made by Trump himself. The problem that SPECIFICO comes close to stating is that if Trump were a news source, or for that matter just about anyone other than the President of the United States, he would have been flatly labeled as an unreliable source a long time ago. Obviously we can't ignore him or fail to cite him when he makes important statements or claims. But I am wondering if we have not reached the point where it is time to state the obvious. Donald Trump is not a reliable source and we should treat any statements or claims made by him as in some way questionable unless they are obviously non-controversial or they have been independently confirmed by reliable sources. Of course that opens a whole can of worms. How do we qualify unverified claims without calling the man a pathological liar or in some other way violating NPOV? Maybe I should should move this to RSN? Thoughts? - Ad Orientem ( talk) 22:37, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Simple answer, Ad Orientem...use in-text attribution because tweets would be considered a primary source. If it's published in multiple secondary/third party sources, include the text with inline citations. Unless Trump has been professionally diagnosed with verifiable medical records to be a pathological liar, it is still "opinion" regardless of how many RS speculate about it. We have already determined with this president, and those before him, that what some consider lies others do not perceive to be lies...and that is why in-text attribution works best, and is the least disruptive. ^{Atsme 📞 📧} 23:15, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Fact is not opinion. SPECIFICO talk 23:22, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

But Atsme, there is still such a thing as objective truth. Back in the old days "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" was clearly and correctly called out as a lie. It may be more difficult to ascertain the truth of "I didn't mock that disabled reporter" (I'm paraphrasing), and one would have to judge for oneself whether his excuse, "Despite having one of the all-time great memories, I certainly do not remember him" is true or not. That's where we attribute. But "I watched when the World Trade Center came tumbling down. And I watched in Jersey City, New Jersey, where thousands and thousands of people were cheering as that building was coming down. Thousands of people were cheering"--there is no other way to describe that as a lie, or else we must blame it one some massively faulty memory, a flaw in "one of the all-time great memories". As for his wealth, we must ascribe--to him, and the reader will just have to beware, or to Forbes or whatever, and the reader will just have to keep in mind that Forbes measures in certain ways, etc. But this whole "others perceive as lies" thing does not work here, since we're not others. Drmies ( talk) 23:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree. His words should be taken at face value. He is a primary source in regards to his presidency. Sovietmessiah ( talk) 00:01, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

President Trump lied more than 3,000 times in 466 days. CNN. Need I say more? -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 23:42, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• Yes you do, because the question here is about how we present information. Drmies ( talk) 23:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I would never state something as fact that he said. It would always be "...according to Trump". But that's not singling him out. We do the same for "...according to Comey" or "...according to Clinton" or whoever. I can't think of a single person that meets our definition of a "Reliable Source," that is, having editorial control and a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. (On the other hand, when we do a "Trump said" something proven false, we should absolutely follow with the debunking.) -- MelanieN ( talk) 00:08, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Of course; we go by what RS say, especially fact checkers. We can't "assume" he's being truthful. He has never had a reputation for honesty. We must compare his statements to verified facts found in RS.

He is only reliable for what he says, not for the reliability of what he says. The difference is significant. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 00:14, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Those are the easy ones. The difficult issue is what to do when e.g. Ronny Jackson dissembles or Mnuchin, or Sara Huckabee? They are lying because Trump adopts a false narrative so that a true statement would be out of place, appear incorrect, or be punished by him. This is not me speaking, that's what RS tell us. Making the issue worse, the mainstream press is reluctant to write stories one after the other saying that the Administration today lied about A B C D E... I was starttled to see NBC News' Andrea Mitchell hold up an NSA statement on Iran yesterday evening and call it a lie. She had plenty of documentation for that, but the press generally cannot or will not be so clear about the daily events. Who thinks Trump actually took the Montreal Cognitive Test? What makes you think so? Would Jackson's report have been any different even if Trump couldn't pass the test? So why administer it? Did they in fact administer it? Dana Milbank has his doubts. So does Frank Bruni. SPECIFICO talk 00:33, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

• This is an interesting question. All politicians exaggerate, and a not small percentage outright lie. But Trump appears to be nearly unique. In his own book, he calls it “truthful hyperbole”, which seems to say that he thinks hyperbole can be truth if you don’t expect people to believe it. Only, he clearly does want others to believe what he says and has built his empire in this manner. WaPo presents 3,000 misrepresentations: [4] Anyone that listens to him sees constant inventions and contradictions. He clearly makes stuff up. I would not refer to Nixon as a constant liar as his lies were focused in one area (OK two major areas) and all politicians tend to break the barrier between truth and lies. I would not call Trump a pathological liar, as I’m not a psychologist, and Trump’s lies seem to work for him; which would appear to contradict the definition of pathology. But, the simple fact that he has an unusual relationship with veracity, as WP understands it, is problematic. I’m not seeing how we treat this as different from any accused person. We state the facts as per RS and attribute responses. But, there is the problem that he also hires people and has the power to spread false scenarios. I’m open to suggestions on how to treat an unusual situation on current events. O3000 ( talk) 00:36, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

BTW, I didn’t bring up Nixon to suggest this was a one party problem. I could easily blather on about lies told by LBJ and JFK. But, the current situation is a unique problem in my mind. O3000 ( talk) 01:54, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

It can only be done case by case...we simply cannot throw a blanket over the top of what politicians say and call them pathological liars. Politicians are like horsetraders - imagine a horsetrader trying to sell you a skinny horse, saying he's a good'un, but doesn't 'look' real good right now. You buy the horse thinking you can put some weight on him and make him look better, but when you get him home, you find out he's blind. I believe our current policies address the problem adequately - use in-text attribution. I see no benefit in attaching either an "unreliable source label" or a "pathological liar label" on a sitting US president considering the rise in his approval rating, the media's dislike for him, the growing partisan divide, and the fact that he has focused on his campaign promises. I think we need to let the facts speak to his character; let our readers make their own determination of whether or not he's a pathological liar or just ego-exaggerating. It is not our job to judge what he says as a lie or the truth, so why even bring it up? We haven't done that for any of our past presidents. Even the George Washington Cherry Tree myth has been debunked. 😢 Case by case...in-text attribution...until there has been a medical or scientific evaluation/determination after examination and testing, and was determined by medical professionals to be a pathological liar. ^{Atsme 📞 📧} 01:58, 2 May 2018 (UTC)  

• "Should we give a presumption of accuracy to claims made by Trump?" Of course not, on two levels. No individual person is a "reliable source" except for the fact that they uttered or wrote certain words. We need reliable, secondary published sources discussing those words in order to analyze them or characterize them. On a deeper level, Trump is a special "edge case", because his falsehoods are so frequent and so thoroughly refuted by highly reliable sources. On a side note, Atsme, George Washington did not tell that cherry tree tall tale. It first appeared in a hagiography published after his death. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:14, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Cullen - that's why I linked to the story. My mention of it was for the sake of levity. ^{Atsme 📞 📧} 02:27, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Trump's dubious relationship to truth and facts

Since we have a lot of editors here who are interested in this subject, here's a small portion of what I've got, nicely hatted so it doesn't dominate. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 06:02, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

My goodness, BR...Trump calls the media fake news, and the media strikes back by publishing as many Trump lies as they can find. Trump is all about baitclick media made easy via his tweets and other avenues of public exposure ^{not to be mistaken for public exposure}, unlike no other president before him, which may explain why he has 10x as many published lies. I don't agree that a blanket statement about him being a pathological liar is DUE - habitual, perhaps, but not pathological - and only on a case by case basis. I would not oppose inclusion of his most significant/notable lies that have long lasting, encyclopedic value - something readers can readily associate with him, like some of the lies associated with past presidents. In the interim, can we please balance some of the speculation and journalistic opinion by adding more fact-based statements per DUE & BALANCE? See this BBC article, Donald Trump: How the media created the president. David Sillito did an excellent job explaining how Trump's victory was "...a brutal kick in the teeth for those loathed pundits, insiders and "righteous mongers". But it was also a humiliation for the thousands of journalists who had spent months trying to warn the public about Donald J Trump." It clearly has long lasting encyclopedic value as it relates to Trump's victory - not excuses but facts about how the media failed to notice the "strangeness" about Trump's speeches and "...how much of what he says refers to issues and topics that are not part of the mainstream news agenda." IOW, media got "Trumped". Sillito asked an important question in his BBC article as it relates to "alt-media" using Breitbart as an example: Bannon is a man who also shares all the right enemies. But how do we know people believe him any more than other parts of the media? Ahhh...the million dollar question; the answer to which no one can say for certain, but it addresses the hatted articles you listed above. The fake news narrative and attempts to shake Trump voters from the trees is very POV, and factually unsupported. We can say some reports ^who? have indicated that more (alt-right than alt-left readers, or whatever) read fake news...and include inline attribution...but it is still a bipartisan phenomena. Whether or not fake news actually influenced readers remains unsubstantiated, excluding opinions and speculation. Science tells us people read the National Enquirer for its entertainment value.

In 2010, Oliver Burkeman wrote an article about the National Enquirer in The Guardian in which he opined: ...but even if you buy it, you don't necessarily believe it. It's entertainment. Whether it's true or not is largely beside the point. What he said is supported by scientific/academic studies as evidenced by the links in this NYTimes blog titled Science Explains the National Enquirer by John Tierney. Example: ...positive information about nonallies was relatively uninteresting and unlikely to be transmitted, whereas positive information about allies would be shared enthusiastically. Those articles and their cited "links/sources" identify how they arrived at their conclusions, such as Sillito's identification of partisan views in his BBC article and Tierney's identification of who/what the studies were about - perfect examples of journalistic objectivity which allows readers to form their own conclusions rather than presenting the info with an editorial spin or based primarily on journalistic opinion. ^{Atsme 📞 📧} 20:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Fortunately no one has proposed labeling Trump a pathological liar in Wikivoice, but we can cite RS which do so. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 22:03, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but pathological is much different from habitual in that the former is the result of a physical or mental disease, and until Trump is diagnosed with such a disease, we leave it out despite the speculation or journalistic opinion in RS. It is unencyclopedic information because it is not supported by factual evidence. Being an habitual liar doesn't require a medical diagnosis and will more readily be accepted as journalistic opinion that requires in-text attribution. It's all about how we present the published information, and editor judgment tells us our first consideration should be to maintain the quality and integrity of the project. ^{Atsme 📞 📧} 23:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

... more formally, WP:IAR. -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 03:36, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Pew Research Center answered that "million dollar question" a few years ago. See "Trust and Distrust of News Sources by Ideological Group", 2014. It appears that even the most "consistent" conservatives trust Fox and the Wall Street Journal more than they trust Breitbart. -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 04:39, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

More at DSM-5 (2013):

Personality Disorders

301.7 Antisocial Personality Disorder

Only when antisocial personality traits are inflexible [and] maladaptive ... and cause significant functional impairment ... do they constitute antisocial personalty disorder.

Circumstances of Personal History

V71.01 Adult Antisocial Behavior

This category can be used when the focus of clinical attention is adult antisocial behavior that is not due to a mental disorder (e.g., ... antisocial personality disorder). Examples include the behavior of some professional thieves ....

V Code conditions are not mental disorders. Per WP:IAR, we can't say he's a "pathological" liar, anywhere in this article, in anyone's voice ... other than his own.

We could, for example, say he claims to be a part-time liar.

Trump admits he might lie to voters. "I might lie to you like Hillary does all the time, but ..."

Vitali, "In His Words: 19 Notable Thoughts from Donald Trump", NBC News, August 14, 2016. -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 05:35, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

How to efficiently address biased initiatives on this talk page

Wow. Quoting this tidbit: Fortunately no one has proposed labeling Trump a pathological liar in Wikivoice, but we can cite RS which do so. So Trump must either be a pathological liar or he has mental problems that detaches him from reality. The anti-trump bias here has reached shocking proportions.

Apparently, this talk venue has been partially hijacked by a handful of vociferous anti-trump wikipedians who now believe they have achieved a consensus whenever they are met with silence by the rest of the wikipedian community after it has fatigued and grown weary of absurdity like this.

All politicians lie; that's not news. Mister Rogers could have mentioned that to all the pre-schoolers watching his show (“If you steal a cookie, admit it, my little neighborhood friends; please don’t be like a lying politician,”). Ever since democracy was invented and leaders could only govern with the consent of the governed, politicians have lied. Their lies have continued up to modern times, such as when Hillary, responding in a court filing, gave variations of 'I don't recall' 21 out of 25 times regarding the erasure of her mail server in response to questions like ‘whether anyone ever told her she could be breaking the law by deleting the emails.’ Nope; she forgot such trivial events like that. As long as the world has politicians, they will be spewing lies.

Even Eisenhower (someone I admire greatly) who had seen the German autobahns during WWII, lied his face off when he told American farmers, who were having their property forfeited via eminent domain, that allowing freeways to be built across their fields was their patriotic duty so cities to be evacuated in the event of nuclear war.

We need a better system here on this talk page so wikipedians don’t have to daily check in here to catch threads like this in near-real-time and nip them in the bud when it's obvious what’s being discussed doesn’t have a snowball’s chance of achieving a consensus by the wider wikipedian community. No one should have to weigh in on nonsense like this as a counterbalance to ensure a false consensus doesn’t appear to exist on slanderous issues in a BLP such as whether the POTUS must have lost his mind or have personality disorders. Greg L ( talk) 23:17, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok then, we'll start an RfC for every content dispute at this article. And presumably for all Trump-related articles. That's satirical, the serious response is that your mastery of Wikipedia policy (and WP:AGF) leave a bit to be desired. The comment you quoted with an editorial "Wow" is not inconsistent with Wikipedia policy. ― Mandruss  ☎ 23:38, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh, please don’t be so quick to invoke the ol’ you-aren’t-AGF response, Mandruss. How about assuming I have good faith and that by pointing out bias, I wasn’t suggesting that anyone lacked good faith?

You know just as well as I do that people can have good faith and still succumb to bias, sometimes at great cost. That’s why the medical world and other scientific disciplines developed blinded experiments; because, as that article states, it is understood that bias may be intentional or subconscious, thus no dishonesty is implied by blinding.

That Trump is so polarizing brings out highly polarized opinions and unusual wikipedian behavior, and that means we should consider trying to come up with a better system to best serve the interests of our readership. If we put our heads together and worked constructively, we should be able to come up with a process between what we have now and having an RfC on everything. Greg L ( talk) 00:01, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

The you-aren't AGF response is ol' precisely because AGF failure is so common and so counterproductive. Misinterpretation of AGF is widespread, and your suggestion that I have questioned your good faith is one example; I most definitely have not.
I think you'll be hard pressed to find many editors willing to devote their valuable time to developing solutions to problems that they don't think exist, but I'll devote a little of mine to listening to any suggestions you may have. I agree that this article is biased, as in failing to fairly reflect the body of RS on Trump, but I differ as to the direction of the bias. Any "solution" would need to address my concerns as well as yours. ― Mandruss  ☎ 00:20, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, we seem to be making progress in that we at least agree the article is biased. The reason for that bias in the article is betrayed by the bias on this talk page, which is extraordinary; people with wildly different world views, upset that the article doesn’t conform to their sense of balance, argue here with off-center initiatives. Consequently, too much effort is devoted to identifying what constitutes an RS and what constitutes a proper balance and consensus of the RSs.

One of the more astute observations I’ve seen here in a long while is the 04:39, 5 May 2018 (UTC) post, above, by User:Dervorguilla, who pointed to "Trust and Distrust of News Sources by Ideological Group" by the Pew Research Center, a nonpartisan American fact tank based in Washington, D.C. I propose we develop a mixed, core set of RSs to which we quickly refer when judging whether a given topic should be covered and what our take on that topic ought to be.

Dervorguilla’s poll is an interesting place to start insofar as identifying the RSs that would comprise such a mixed, core set. We could, for instance, develop a guideline that calls for relying upon a mix of RSs where some are considered “more trusted than distrusted”-section amongst those with ideologically mixed political views. Then we could sprinkle the list with some RSs that are trusted by both political extremes (liberal & conservative). All this is in the poll Dervorguilla referenced.

Developing a list of core RSs to reference when trying to identify what is a topical, balanced, and germane for a subject to cover as well as our take on that subject would be a *guideline* (not a rule) that we could refer to as we try to quickly put some of the nuttier proposals being discussed here to bed and accomplish that end with less waste of everyone's time. Greg L ( talk) 02:17, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

@ Greg L: Such things are beyond the scope of this talk page. Also, please provide "tl;dr" versions of your comments if they exceed more than one paragraph! -- Scjessey ( talk) 12:50, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, that’s your opinion, Scjessey. IMHO, nothing the sort is beyond what we can agree to do here; a “standard panel of RSs” can be a litmus test to gauge whether a proposed edit should be adopted or advanced to an RfC.

And it seems high time we try given we’ve just witness a dead-serious and absolutely absurd thread like this being discussed here: Fortunately no one has proposed labeling Trump a pathological liar in Wikivoice, but we can cite RS which do so.

As regards your little jab regarding tl;dr, I submit that if you seriously expect readers to wade through a 15,0000-word article on Trump, the wikipedian community can seriously expect you to read 300 words yourself if you expect to help decide on article content. Greg L ( talk) 15:38, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

In my view, we are already dealing fairly effectively with the more extreme interpretations of content policy. I'm not necessarily saying the comment you quoted is one, but do you see a lot of traction for any content including the words "pathological liar"? If it doesn't get into the article, what's your concern?
The "all politicians lie" argument betrays a strong pro-Trump bias. We have been over this again and again on this page, and we always reach the same conclusion. No fair and objective observer can look at RS on Trump's lying and claim that it is comparable to that on any previous president in modern history, including Tricky Dick Nixon and Slick Willie Clinton. Unlike Tricky and Slick, substantial coverage of Trump's alleged honesty issues pre-dates his presidency by decades. If you surveyed coverage of Trump's "unusual relationship with the truth" in RS comprising the "More trusted than distrusted" part of the "Ideologically Mixed" chart of the Pew report—refraining from rationalizations for giving some of those sources more weight than others—I'm very confident it would support significantly more content in this article about the issue, and that content would lean decidedly Trump-negative. Be careful what you wish for. We could debate weight and balance ( WP:BALASP) issues, we already do that, and that's the main reason we barely touch on the issue in this article. ― Mandruss  ☎ 18:09, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Once again, I respond with, Wow! I suggest the far-from earth shaking observation that " all politicians lie," and you allege that betrays that I have a strong pro-Trump bias. Such a knee-jerk reaction to that truism suggests you have a strong anti-Trump bias, Mandruss. And that’s the problem here; little gets accomplished except when the pro-Trump wikipedians publicly bounce ideas back and forth and pat each other on the back, or visa-versa with the anti-Trump wikipedians. And the result of this disfunction is a tedious 15,000-word article that’s become a throw everything in but the kitchen sink to appease warring factions who land here with agendas to push. Greg L ( talk) 21:41, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

So don't be pro- or anti-Trump. Just be an editor. O3000 ( talk) 21:45, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, yeah, O3000. But most of us arrive to Wikipedia with biases. Leaving those biases behind is double-tough when it comes to Trump, who is polarizing. A county-wide breakdown of who voted for Trump and Hillary betrays a deep ideological divide that cuts to the core of individuals’ world view. As I mentioned above, blinded experiments (as in “double-blind experiments”) exist precisely to counteract this human foible, where those charged with collecting and analyzing data unconsciously introduce biases into their conclusions.

Do you perceive the need, O3000, to have a better procedure on this talk page for identifying a core set of RSs to which we can refer when judging whether something should be added, deleted, or adjusted in the article? The idea would be to make quick work with such a screening so we spend less time debating things, like whether we should go in search of RSs that claim Trump is a pathological liar. Greg L ( talk) 22:11, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm perfectly happy with the core set of WP guidelines. As for the term pathological liar, we shouldn't use it. Period. O3000 ( talk) 22:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Strong pro-Trump bias is the most generous explanation for the "all politicians lie" argument. Others include mental laziness and inability to think critically, but, since you don't seem the type for either, I went with the bias explanation. But I can't imagine a more baseless argument. There's the usual distortion, dissembling, evasion, exaggeration, and even some outright lying, all the things that give politicians (and lawyers) a bad name with most of the population, but Trump takes it to a whole new level, producing an endless and relentless barrage of documented falsehoods. To present this as politics as usual is simply false. Period. And RS clearly supports that. You can Wow! until blue in the face, but you won't change my mind on that point, or the mind of anybody else on this page. I'm close to disengaging from a discussion that I thought might have some value, however. ― Mandruss  ☎ 22:21, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

It would be nice if you didn’t write things here, Mandruss, where you pretend to speak for everyone else on this page. When did you develop that practice that you speak for others? You are entitled to your own opinions. The article has become a magnet for anti-Trumpers to come vent; I’m far from the only wikipedian to notice this and comment about the rampant anti-Trump bias here. Greg L ( talk) 14:22, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Not understanding your concern about Mandruss, with whom you appear to agree on the disruption here? SPECIFICO talk 15:00, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Greg L, you didn't even ping me, but now that I've discovered this thread...

Since you started this thread to attack my response in the previous thread (Fortunately no one has proposed labeling Trump a pathological liar in Wikivoice, but we can cite RS which do so.), please explain what's wrong with my comment.

Controversial comments are usually in quotes, attributed, and referenced with RS. What's wrong with that? (We could easily document that calling him that epithet is hardly controversial anymore, except among die hard Trump supporters with their heads in the sand, but let's not go there. ) We'll just discuss our usual practice here, as I described. That's how we do it using our policies. What's wrong with that?

Don't you believe in documenting what RS say? Don't you believe in including properly sourced negative information (per NPOV and BLP)? Or do you believe that Trump should be exempted from standard practice that applies to all others? This is especially relevant on a subject where he is placed in a class by himself by experts. He is an example so extreme and never seen before by fact checkers and others who specialize in studying deception and lies. They have even been forced to create new categories of lies in their research because of him. (Yes, there is a class of social science which specializes in the study of lies.) If you aren't aware of this, then read the literature and scientific research. Read what fact checkers say. Read the statistics. Read how he compares with other politicians. When dealing with Trump "all politicians lie" loses all meaning. It's a cop out used by the ignorant.

To relieve your horror, and correct your mistaken opinion, that I, or someone else, am considering writing that "Trump is a pathological liar" in wikivoice, I can assure you I'd never do that. My comment was strictly in response to a straw man false implication and should be seen ONLY in that light.

The content we have here and at Presidency of Donald Trump#False and misleading statements doesn't get anywhere near such territory. The situation where we would, and should, get near it is in an article on the subject, and it's coming. It's an extremely notable subject with massive RS coverage, with new material coming every single day. In such an article, we'd naturally include the opinions of notable individuals regarding Trump's dubious relationship to truth, regardless of whether or not they are psychiatrists, and we'd do it as I described above: "in quotes, attributed, and referenced with RS". Two examples (about the pathological liar label) that come to mind are Bernie Sanders and Ted Cruz. Both have publicly and repeatedly called Trump a pathological liar. We can document that without any risk of violating BLP. If that thought horrifies you or calls for another "wow", then you really need to review our PAG, especially WP:PUBLICFIGURE. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 20:12, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I noticed in the beginning of the Family and personal life section, a number of relatives are mentioned as having “emigrated to” the US. For example, the first sentence of the second paragraph there says, “Trump's paternal grandfather, Friedrich Trump, first emigrated to...”

Wouldn’t the correct word to use here be “immigrated?” Or as an alternative, the sentences could be tweaked to say “emigrated from [origin country] to...”

Sorry, just nit-picking with the grammar here. Thanks for any thoughts! Uturnaroun ( talk) 18:57, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, we need more nit-pickers here. I agree and have made the change. If someone for some reason disagrees, they are free to revert and discuss here. — Compassionate727 ^{( T· C)} 19:20, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

IIRC, you emigrate FROM your home country, while you immigrate TO another country. Emigrants are leaving, and immigrants are arriving. The perspective (and location) of the speaker determines which word to use. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 19:37, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

We should bear in mind that, in word definition and usage, what's "correct" is what most of the population does, and that evolves over time. Even if we understand that, we naturally tend to imagine that there is one currently "correct" answer to language questions, and that's often true, but the fact is that a lot of it is disputed even among authoritative sources. I think this is one such case.
My dictionary of choice, Merriam-Webster, says at emigrate: "The subtle difference between them lies in point of view: emigrate stresses leaving the original place, while immigrate focuses on entering the new one." That seems to imply that we should never say "emigrate to", but the same page contains the example phrase: "emigrated from Canada to the United States". I don't think their interpretation precludes "emigrated to" or "immigrated from"; they are simply saying that the choice of word implies which country the speaker is standing in. No doubt you could find other interpretations.
In the end, it's a matter of opinion of little consequence (not to say this is a waste of time), and I don't oppose this change. ― Mandruss  ☎ 22:06, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

There is no real disagreement. That example is quite good: "emigrated from Canada to the United States". It's using "from" and "to" in the proper ways in relation to the word "emigrated". So in relation to the word "immigrated", it would be "immigrated to Canada from the United States". Is that right? (I'm a bit "language confused" after living in Europe for so many years. My native English isn't always what it should be since I don't speak English all the time. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 23:04, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

If "emigrated to" were "incorrect" in the eyes of Merriam-Webster, I think the example phrase would be a really bad example for illustrative purposes. It would have to read "emigrated from Canada and immigrated to the United States". I choose to believe that they wouldn't be so careless. ― Mandruss  ☎ 23:13, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

OMG! I wrote that wrong. I should have switched the countries. Your latest example uses both words in the correct way. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 23:20, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

In cases where you include both the place of departure and the destination, I believe which word you use is determined by proximity. That is, it would be best to say "emigrate from Canada to the United States," while if you inverted the word order, it would become "immigrate to the United States from Canada." — Compassionate727 ^{( T· C)} 00:12, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

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. ^{Atsme 📞 📧} 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. ^{Atsme 📞 📧} 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. ^{Atsme 📞 📧} 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' [in a scientific study], 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. ^{Atsme 📞 📧} 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. ^{Atsme 📞 📧} 03:50, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Per current consensus, item [20], 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 ^Talk 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. ^{Atsme 📞 📧} 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. ^{Atsme 📞 📧} 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 Wikipedia'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. ^{according to whom?}, ^{dubious – discuss}, ^{further explanation needed}, ^{not specific enough to verify}, ^specify, and so on. ^{Atsme 📞 📧} 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. ^{Atsme 📞 📧} 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: [5] 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.) ^{Atsme 📞 📧} 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. ^{Atsme 📞 📧} 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”. [6] 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. ^{Atsme 📞 📧} 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^(dubious), 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". ^{Atsme 📞 📧} 03:28, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

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, [7] and Volunteer Marek removed it again [8] (he first removed this on 13 April [9]). 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 ^talk 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 ^talk 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)