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.

Today trump announced he is going to start eating healthier. 24.51.215.40 ( talk) 01:43, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, WP:NOTNEWS WP:RECENTISM WP:10YT. O3000 ( talk) 01:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I actually agree with Objective here, weird. PackMecEng ( talk) 17:26, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to announce that I am going on a diet too, with an intention to eat healthier. I think my announcement is just of worthy of inclusion as Trump's. -- Scjessey ( talk) 17:32, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Me too! Together we shall diet. — JFG ^talk 19:30, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

And yet we manage to find room in the article for "Several prominent physicians who have not examined Trump have commented that his weight, lifestyle, and LDL cholesterol level of 143 do not indicate excellent health"... I'm just saying. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 13:51, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to remove that. — JFG ^talk 15:46, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Given the history of that sentence, I think it's safe to say that removal would be reverted. ― Mandruss  ☎ 15:51, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Possibly, but it's less recent now. WP:CCC — JFG ^talk 16:13, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Let me make that into a confirmation; indeed, I would revert that removal, since if we're including Ronny Jackson's statement of excellent health we should also include other analyses as reported in RS. (overall, though, I think I'd support removing most of the health section, i.e both Jackson's statement and the analyses of other physicians) Also, I think WP:CCC is often overused; it is still going to be the same dozen or so editors arguing over it now than when it was discussed before, and they are unlikely to shift much in opinion. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 16:17, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

There is a big difference between a statement about an announcement of someone's diet and a well-verified claim by relevant authorities about the health of the president of the US. Drmies ( talk) 16:20, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Fine. Not important either way. Hey, we just pre-empted some drama by chatting here. Wonderful achievement! — JFG ^talk 16:21, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Let's celebrate. Cheeseburgers for everyone. Drmies ( talk) 16:27, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Premature. Not everybody has seen this. Still plenty of time for drama. ― Mandruss  ☎ 16:28, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

My head already hurts today, no need to kick start a new month long adventure for something minor. PackMecEng ( talk) 16:31, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Besides, if it’s like most diets, by the time we stopped debating, he’d be off it. Is swearing off fatty foods likely to last any longer than Roseanne swearing off Twitter? O3000 ( talk) 18:12, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I've reverted this edit because it seems super clunky. Is it really necessary? And if so, can we do a better job of it? -- Scjessey ( talk) 16:52, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

What part is not necessary?-- MONGO 17:21, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

The entire part that was added. -- Scjessey ( talk) 17:31, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I think that was in response to this thread. PackMecEng ( talk) 17:25, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

That thread doesn't appear to have resolved anything, and has gone a little stale. -- Scjessey ( talk) 17:31, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

This is such a controversial statement and has almost become infamous at this point that I think it would be better for us to just use his direct quote in its entirety rather than trying to paraphrase part of it. Rreagan007 ( talk) 17:34, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I fully agree with that. -- Scjessey ( talk) 17:36, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

How about "Trump launched his 2016 presidential campaign with a speech in which he stated: "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with them. They're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime, they're rapists, and some, I assume, are good people." Rreagan007 ( talk) 17:42, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Two thumbs up. -- Scjessey ( talk) 17:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, if the quote, as short as it is anyway, is to be included, include all of it.-- MONGO 17:48, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

agree, better than trying to paraphrase that by basically repeating the quote Galobtter ( pingó mió) 17:52, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh dear. This edit from Guy Macon ( talk · contribs) was not very smart, given that we're in mid discussion. -- Scjessey ( talk) 17:59, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but I was not aware of this discussion. I simply saw a claim in a Wikipedia article that did not match what was in the cited source and tried to correct it. After the correction was reverted, I tried correcting it with different wording. I stand by my conclusion that the claim does not match what was in the cited source. Is someone willing to argue that it does? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 18:19, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the edit adding the actual quote. -- MelanieN ( talk) 19:11, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

+1 to using the full quote without comment. — JFG ^talk 19:29, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Rreagan007 ( talk · contribs) has changed the quote we all agreed to, without explicitly notifying us, to make it look as if we agreed to something we didn't. I don't think the addition is necessary, but it isn't a deal breaker for me. I just wanted to make sure everyone was aware of this unpublicized change. -- Scjessey ( talk) 23:26, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I apologize. The original quote I found was apparently incomplete. To check the quotation, I actually went back and watched the video of the speech and discovered the error. If we use the original shortened version, we should include ellipsis to indicate that part of the quote was removed. So the two choices are:

Option 1: "Trump launched his 2016 presidential campaign with a speech in which he stated: "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with them. They're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime, they're rapists, and some, I assume, are good people."

Option 2: "Trump launched his 2016 presidential campaign with a speech in which he stated: "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best...They're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime, they're rapists, and some, I assume, are good people."

Rreagan007 ( talk) 23:32, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

If we are to provide a direct quote (and I think that we should) we should provide the entire, unedited quote. Using an ellipsis is for removing extra words that do not change the meaning, and you will never get a consensus that this is true in this case. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 01:14, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I think there's already agreement to use (1) the complete words. SPECIFICO talk 01:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I also think using the complete quote is better. It gives the full context, and I think until we actually include the entire quote rather than paraphrases or partial quotes, many people will still be unsatisfied. Rreagan007 ( talk) 02:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Support Option 1: This is the best choice IMO. Gandydancer ( talk) 02:44, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, if we really want to quote Trump's words verbatim, it's getting a bit long-winded, because Trump is ad-libbing. Per the cited Sky News source, [1] the full quote would be:

When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.

That is in my opinion too long, and the middle part is superfluous. I think we can dispense with "not sending you" and "lots of problems" parts, therefore use option 2, which got full agreement in the discussion above before somebody edited the quote. — JFG ^talk 03:08, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

"Full agreement??" What are you talking about? Version 1 cleans up the stutter and gives the entire sense of the quote. Version 2 is artfully edited to convey something less than what Trump stated. Where was there full agreement to use the sanitized #2? SPECIFICO talk 03:14, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

As our esteemed colleague Scjessey noted above, Rreagan007 edited his proposed quote at 20:38 UTC, [2] after all participating editors in this thread so far had agreed to what is now called "option 2": Scjessey, MONGO, Galobtter, Guy Macon, MelanieN and myself. After that edit and Scjessey's clarification, Guy Macon, you and Gandydancer picked the longer "option 1" version. — JFG ^talk 03:27, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I do support option #1, but it wouldn't break my heart if the consensus was for option #2. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 03:54, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

( edit conflict) We could also perhaps use an extra quote from the same source, whereby Trump clarified that he was not only talking about Mexicans, but also immigrants from Central America coming via Mexico. You have people coming in, and I'm not just saying Mexicans - I'm talking about people that are from all over that are killers and rapists, and they're coming into this country. What do you think? — JFG ^talk 03:17, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

We're not going to get into the "clarify" and "it was just a joke" and "what I really meant" revisions. SPECIFICO talk 03:20, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Nobody else than you talked about a joke; Trump certainly did not. And he was always clear about who the source of crime and drugs was, in his view: immigrants from Central America crossing Mexico, especially gangs from Colombia and El Salvador. This played out repeatedly. — JFG ^talk 03:30, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

No, he wasn't always clear. That is one of his problems, and he gets himself into trouble at times with his words. HiLo48 ( talk) 03:33, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Fair point: Trump was not always clear; still he made that distinction over and over again. Still makes it today with regard to MS-13 gang members. — JFG ^talk 05:45, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

JFG, you are the one who suggested using a revisionist version that changes "Mexico sending us its people" to some otherstuff about Central America. You might as well say he was discussing the Superbowl. SPECIFICO talk 03:38, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

It's not "revisionist" to add relevant information that was duly noted by RS. Please stay focused on the edits at hand instead of distracting your fellow editors with "jokes" and "the Superbowl". — JFG ^talk 05:43, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Depends what you mean. If Trump had done it, that would have been revisionist. If a WP editor does it, that's called "SYNTH". Unless you have a citation that verifies Trump's famous statement (you know, the one we're discussing here) really being about Central Americans just passin' thru Mexico, there's no possible justification for your proposed revisionist version. SPECIFICO talk 18:01, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support Option 2 - I prefer the shortened version with the ellipsis for brevity. I think the removed bit adds no useful context. With that said, I don't have any strong objection to option 1. -- Scjessey ( talk) 13:14, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support Option 2 I did know what that the entire quote was much longer (which is why I added the ellipsis); "They're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime, they're rapists, and some, I assume, are good people" is the most quoted and most important portion, with the rest being quite unnecessary to include; "They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with them." doesn't add anything, as the problems are described in the next sentence. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 13:40, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support Option 1 But its a detail and I won't make an arbcom case if option #2 gets adopted instead. L293D ( ☎ •  ✎) 14:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support option 1 of course. Because it's complete and gives true context. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:08, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support Option 1 per SPECIFICO above. עם ישראל חי ( talk) 14:40, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
• 2 per Galobtter, with two changes. The period preceding the ellipsis is missing, and, per MOS:ELLIPSIS, there should be a space on each side of the ellipsis. Suggest coding best. ... They're. ― Mandruss  ☎ 15:06, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support Option 2 Brevity is the soul and all. But, don’t object to either option. O3000 ( talk) 15:23, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support Option 1 Just use the full quote, covers all the bases and gives full context. PackMecEng ( talk) 16:26, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support Option 1: A significant percentage of our readers will object to editing the words of Donald Trump. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 16:44, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Whichever version is used, a video-clip illustration (if available) would be appropriate for this signature campaign-launch statement. SPECIFICO talk 18:04, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I added the link to the C-SPAN video on YouTube to both [3] and to [4]. The transcript of the speech was already cited in the Announcement_speech section, and I added it to the Racial_views section, as well. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 17:06, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support Option 1 per reasoning of PackMecEng. Greg L ( talk) 16:04, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
• At what point during this ongoing discussion (in this thread and in [5]) was there consensus to replace the previous wording "Trump launched his 2016 presidential campaign with a speech in which he described Mexican immigrants as criminals and rapists" with a direct quote, never mind which direct quote? If I had to choose between the two direct quotes presented so far, I’d choose Option 2. As for Option 1, the quote is incorrect. Trump didn’t say "they're bringing those problems with them", he said "they're bringing those problems with us". And both quotes are incomplete without the sentences that follow. So, here’s Option 3: "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best...They're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime, they're rapists, and some, I assume, are good people. But I speak to border guards and they tell us what we’re getting. And it only makes common sense. … They’re sending us not the right people." Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 16:51, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Naw. Your proposed Option 3 is poor encyclopedic prose because it begs a question and the paragraph in which that quote is imbedded does nothing to explain the begged question.

  The penultimate sentence in your expanded quote mentions “it” (And it only makes common sense); which is to say, the expanded version you are proposing begs the question of what, now, is the subject being discussed. Furthermore, your proposal again employs the ellipsis we’re trying to address.

  One could arbitrarily expand the passage being quoted upwards and downwards by increasing amounts but Option 1 seems to strike the best compromise for serving the interest of our readership by not employing an ellipsis that replaced key wording from the middle of the quoted passage. Greg L ( talk) 17:06, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• My preferred version is still the original one which is short and to the point and omits all of the direct speech argle-bargle and the need to "edit the words of Donald Trump", as another editor put it. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 17:20, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• We should quote the entire speech, lest we edit the words of Donald Trump. It follows that we should report every damn word the man says. We'll need another spinoff article, Things Donald Trump has said. ― Mandruss  ☎ 17:33, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

@ Greg L: It's not "key wording" so much as word salad, and it doesn't "serv[e] the interest of our readership" in the slightest. The meaning is plain whether it is left in or out, and it provides no additional context. -- Scjessey ( talk) 17:30, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Now that the furor has died down and we are close to a consensus, I would once again like to repeat that the claim "he described Mexican immigrants as criminals and rapists" is not in the source cited and that I was entirely correct to change it to "he described some Mexican immigrants as criminals and rapists." [6]. Those who reverted and or criticized me for such an obviously correct action should take a long hard look at whether they are allowing their political views to interfere with the basic principle that the claim should match the citation. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 03:25, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

No, it hasn't, no, we're not, and your proposed change still incorrectly reflects the sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Donald_Trump&oldid=843183191. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 04:48, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes it has, yes we are, and his proposed change is accurate, encyclopedic, and concise. What's more, content should not "reflect the sources", rather, the prose written is to be supported by sources - you have it backwards, Space. We don't parrot sources, we write content with original prose and use reliable sources to back it up. Guy has been here a long time, has ten-of-thousands more edits than both of us put together, and I assure you that he is always thorough as well as honest in his dealings here in Wikipedia. I trust his assessment and agree with it. You should, too. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 05:01, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

content should not "reflect the sources", rather, the prose written is to be supported by sources - Since that distinction is lost on me, I'm apparently no match for your intellect, Winkelvi. To my limited mind, "reflect the sources" seems quite consistent with the first paragraph at WP:NPOV. I've always said Wikipedia policy is too complicated and nuanced for simple folk like me. ― Mandruss  ☎ 05:28, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Huh, me too. I wish maybe there'd be a WP:Simple guide to NPOV for folk like us. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 05:35, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry you're both having trouble understanding the difference between "represent" (take the place of in some respect and aspect) and "reflect" (to mirror, provide an image of what's seen in proximity). -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 05:51, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

That's a useful distinction, thanks. WP:Simple guide to NPOV would be neat indeed. — JFG ^talk 05:55, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I'm just too simple to cherry-pick the one sense of a word that gives me something to argue about. Probably I've also been misled by the rampant use of the phrase "reflect the sources" throughout the project. Thank you for enlightening us. ― Mandruss  ☎ 06:01, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I am not suggesting any change. The versions that are currently being discussed are better than what I wrote or the lie I was replacing. Nor do have a problem with the claim that my edit also imperfectly reflected what is in the source -- that's why we have discussions and that's why we now have a couple of choices that are far better than my original effort at fixing the source/claim mismatch.

I do not wish to single any one person out, but could someone thinks my edit was not an improvement please explain how the hell you can support an article saying that Trump described Mexican immigrants as criminals and rapists when the source clearly says that Trump described some Mexican immigrants as criminals and rapists? If you cannot see the difference or cannot see that the source contradicts the claim, then perhaps you can tell me, when you went to school, whether you rode on the short bus or the long bus...

And yes, I have been editing Wikipedia for 12 years, have made 40,000 edits with zero blocks or other sanctions, and am the author of the well-regarded essay WP:1AM. That doesn't make me any better than a new editor, but please consider the possibility that maybe, just maybe, I know what I am talking about. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 06:07, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't have any wisdom to add, but my preference is for the shorter Option 2. Partly because that is the portion of his speech that most sources reported (and still report). Just a comment about "described (some) Mexican immigrants as...": that could be misleading, because he may have been talking about people coming over the U.S./Mexico border, rather than necessarily Mexican citizens. (To the extent that we can actually tell who he was talking about.) We avoid trying to interpret who he meant, by quoting him directly. -- MelanieN ( talk) 23:26, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Melanie, when Trump said "Mexico sends its people..." what is a plausible rationale for any uncertainty that these people are Mexican people? The first time this came up and somebody suggested he was really talking about Central Americans passing through there was no support. Do you have a reference or other reason to interpret "its people" as being from somewhere other than its own country? SPECIFICO talk 00:03, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

If we are going to be modern-day kremlinologists and try to figure out what Trump "really meant" instead of what he actually said, we could start with the fact that Mexico doesn't appear to have "sent" anyone but rather they voluntarily chose to cross the border. But that way leads to madness. Far better to just report what he actually said. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 02:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, I'm not arguing that he meant one thing or another. I'm just saying that the paraphrase "described Mexican immigrants as..." is putting words in his mouth. And of course, as Guy points out, the notion that Mexico is "sending" us people (as Castro once did) is nonsense. Bottom line, if his words are unclear or need parsing or seem to be modified by things he said later, we mustn't try to interpret them. Sometimes all we can do is report what he actually said. -- MelanieN ( talk) 15:15, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I supported including both the complete text and a video clip, so I don't believe we disagree about that. I'm saying that - in the absence of well-sourced references to support it - we should reject any revisionist claims that he was really talking about something entirely outside the statement we're discussing. If JFG is the only editor who has favored WP saying that Trump's Mexico statement should be decoded to suggest that Trump was actually referring to Central American criminals, then we needn't discuss it further. Does any of us currently favor WP saying that Trump "really meant" Central American criminals when he said "Mexico sending us its people..."? If not, we can move on. SPECIFICO talk 15:27, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Trump's later comments about Central American criminals are not on the table in this discussion. We only need to pick a quote from his initial speech, as that was the seminal moment that received the most attention, even to this day. — JFG ^talk 16:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate your retracting that claim. It greatly simplifies this process. SPECIFICO talk 16:12, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Where are we standing?

So far, the original paraphrase has been superseded by a direct quote, and we have been debating how long that quote should be. I don't see any editors who want to go back to the paraphrase, as even Guy Macon conceded that the currently-proposed versions are better, while defending his original idea (and thanks for your 12 years of contributions, Guy).

In the meantime, somebody has placed the short quote in the article (option 2), and it has not been reverted. I think that's fair, because both options under discussion include that part of the quote, it's just that option 1 would make it longer. So the only decision to make now is: "do editors want the longer quote?" Looking at the opinions expressed so far, I see:

• Support longer quote (option 1): Gandydancer, Specifico, ψλ, עם ישראל חי, PackMecEng, Greg L, MONGO
• Support shorter quote (option 2): Galobtter, JFG, Mandruss, O3000, Space4Time3Continuum2x, Scjessey, MelanieN
• Support option 1 but would accept option 2: Guy Macon, L293D, Gandydancer
• Should clarify, because they expressed their opinion before options 1 and 2 were clearly laid out: MelanieN, MONGO, Rreagan007 (please comment if you wish)
• Has commented in discussion, but not expressed a preference: HiLo48 (please comment if you wish)
• Would still prefer the initial paraphrase: Space4Time3Continuum2x

Overall, opinions are pretty balanced between supporters of both options. A third option was proposed and rejected. MelanieN, in your eternal wisdom, what would you recommend doing? — JFG ^talk 20:56, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

We cannot be conducting these editorial discussions as if they come down to a vote. Interim updates of the voting returns only make the situation worse. SPECIFICO talk 21:05, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

You are the only one talking about votes. I just provided a summary of the debate at hand and opinions expressed so far. It would be refreshing if you'd kindly stop questioning the discussion process in every thread. — JFG ^talk 21:19, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Believe I stated previously that I prefer the entire quote an that is where I still stand.-- MONGO 11:52, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, actually, I'm one editor who wants to "go back to the paraphrase" that IMO shouldn't have been replaced by the direct quote while the discussion was taking place, and I said so, right before I "proposed" Option 3 - I definitely need to cut out the sarcasm. It is my understanding that if the consensus is inconclusive, the long-established text remains. If I'm wrong, then opting for the shortest direct quote, Option 2. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 14:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I would gladly accept the shorter quote over a paraphrase. Gandydancer ( talk) 14:40, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks all for your input; I have updated the summary above. — JFG ^talk 15:49, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Please change "Before entering politics, he was a businessman and television personality." to "Before entering politics, he was a businessman and reality television personality." [7] CryMeAnOcean ( talk) 23:31, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done - Extensively discussed, see #Current consensus, item 17. ― Mandruss  ☎ 23:53, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I believe I supported this addition a year ago; at this point in his presidency I think there are more notable events to discuss in the lead section, and propose removing it. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 18:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I think it should be in the lede, but I don't have a strong opinion. Very notable and has long-term encyclopedic value. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 19:06, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

( edit conflict) Are you proposing a simple removal, or a swap? I support the removal considering the developments since that time, and the fact that it was more so that he demanded the nuclear option rather than his specific pick. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 19:08, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

There's a constant stream of addition requests, so I'm not proposing any particular swap. Someone will use the space soon enough. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 19:13, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

A SCOTUS appointment is a big deal, and content on it has lasting value to Wikipedia since SCOTUS appointees have a seat until the end of time (or at least that's how it feels somewhat). I think it should stay, personally. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 19:15, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Nobody is denying that a SCOTUS appointment is a big deal in general, but we need to consider in the context of a biography on the entire life of Donald Trump. WP:LASTING is about whether an event should have its own article not whether it should be mentioned in the lead of other article, MOS:LEAD is what we have to help us there. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 19:37, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Support removing it from the lead. I looked at all the other current SCOTUSes and the biographies of Presidents who put them there; none of them are mentioned in the lead, and are given as much prominence in the article as appointments to other courts. I don't oppose summarizing all of Trump's court appointments, as short as possible. wumbolo ^^^ 19:47, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

( edit conflict) Keep it for now. It's still considered a major thing, as the "balance of power" in the Supreme Court had been hotly debated since the death of Antonin Scalia. More lead-worthy than the "Cuban thaw" as of today. — JFG ^talk 19:49, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Support removing it. When it was added it was a significant point, but in the ensuing months its significance has faded in comparison to other biographical content.- Mr X 🖋 11:54, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Remove first, it's not personal so it's much more relevant to the Presidency article. Second, it's entirely due to the tireless efforts of Sen. Mitch McConnell and Trump just happened to arrive when it came to fruition. SPECIFICO talk 18:03, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

• Remove from lead - not a major part of the article so not really WP:LEAD indicated, and not major life event or choice or effect so not really WP:BLP -- it's OK it is here a bit, but as an act of presidential powers it would seem should be more or most of the coverage should be in the Presidency of Donald Trump article where it is part of the lead. Cheers Markbassett ( talk) 04:47, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support removal - Only reason this unremarkable conservative dude was appointed was because Republicans, in an unprecedented act of gamesmanship that ignored Obama's election victory, refused to allow the appointment of an unremarkable centrist dude. -- Scjessey ( talk) 20:10, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

From the discussion above, there is no appetite for keeping Gorsuch in the lede as is. There is however a hint that Trump's judicial appointments in general are significant enough to mention. So I would suggest this wording:

Trump made dozens of judicial appointments, including Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court.

This would be placed at the end of the paragraph on domestic policy actions. The Gorsuch nomination was at the beginning because that was one of the first things Trump did upon taking office; now we can see that with some perspective, and observing a continuous flow of judicial appointments. — JFG ^talk 09:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I support this version for now, but expect that in 12-18 months there will be enough other events that we'll be discussing its removal. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 16:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

And I've BOLD-ly implemented this as an interim measure. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 17:54, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Better to boldly remove it, please. -- Scjessey ( talk) 20:10, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

The key point about the large number of judicial appointments the Republicans have achieved in the past 18 months has been that there was an especially large number of vacancies due to their unprecedented action of having blocked virtually all Obama Administration nominations, and that many of the nominees had dubious qualifications for the roles and in at least one widely publicized case were forced to withdraw for gross and manifest inability to respond to typical Congressional screening. This context could be added in a compact, well-crafted sentence. SPECIFICO talk 18:42, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• User:SPECIFICO - Numbers in the lists for recent presidents seem to contradict this narrative. It seems more a matter of random fluctuations and re-balancing by alternating parties in office. Or maybe more accurately said as alternating the unbalancing ? In any case, nothing here seems suitable for BLP.

• List of federal judges appointed by Barack Obama
• List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_George_W._Bush
• List of federal judges appointed by Bill Clinton

Cheers Markbassett ( talk) 04:43, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Following a few edits to the Health section, Mandruss restored a version that had been discussed in January and modified by other editors since then:

Several prominent physicians who have not examined Trump have commented that his weight, lifestyle, and test results do not indicate excellent health. ^[1]

Today I wrote instead:

Several outside cardiologists have commented that Trump's weight, lifestyle and LDL cholesterol level should raise "serious heart concerns". ^[1]

This is more precise and closer to the source article. I would advocate to keep this version. Comments welcome. — JFG ^talk 08:36, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

modified by other editors since then - Yeah, apparently there is some misunderstanding that a consensus has to be in the list to require prior consensus to change it—enough of one for that change to slip by without challenge. The prior consensus rule predates the list, so that can't be the case. ― Mandruss  ☎ 08:46, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Bygones. Now what is your opinion on the above two versions? — JFG ^talk 11:13, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I think you know how I feel about these things. A lot of editor time is invested in the consensus version, I see no compelling reason to revisit, and I feel our limited time would be better spent on things that haven't received any attention. I think perfect is the enemy of good and the status quo is Good Enough. I don't claim that such discussions are strictly improper, but I generally sit them out. ― Mandruss  ☎ 11:36, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

As you noted yourself, this one was a weak consensus, so that it's worth trying to improve the sentence. I may be a star-struck optimist, but little by little this article should make its way to GA promotion. — JFG ^talk 12:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

New versions seems better to me Galobtter ( pingó mió) 09:10, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

The term commented is OK, per WP:SAID. Yet in this context, the term said may be more accurate in describing the outside experts' statements. See the subtitle: Outside experts say, and the body Cardiologists said ... [a cardiologist] said ... said ... offered a reply ... said ... said ... said ... said ... added ... said ... said ... saying ... expressed concern ... said ... said ... calculated the risk ... said. The story uses the term comments twice, and only in describing the examining physician's statements: Dr. Jackson's comments ... his comments to reporters. -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 20:07, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Sure, "said" is fine but it's a bit dull; "commented" is still neutral. Otherwise we could use "opined", because those are opinions, but I'm afraid that would attract backlash. Apart from this choice of verb (which is used in both versions), which version would you rate better? — JFG ^talk 20:31, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

As written, the second version just won't do. We shouldn't say should. Nor ought we to say ought to. For the authors don't use either term in this context. Nor do the cardiologists. Also: Many readers and therefore many cardiologists believe Mr. Trump has no heart, in the sense of having no empathy. So why should they have any concerns about its health, or his? -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 22:11, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the second approach is better, but I don't like "serious heart concerns" either. How about "commented that his weight, lifestyle, and LDL cholesterol level may raise concerns about his cardiac health."? -- MelanieN ( talk) 23:01, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

That kind of emphasizes the euphemistic language, imo. Don't RS report this as an issue relating to the truthfulness of his medical reports rather than relating to diagnosis? I read the sum total of the reports, including the antics of Bornstein and Jackson as indicating that there was very widespread skepticism as to whether the readings or the evaluation were truthful. SPECIFICO talk 23:09, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

That's what the earlier version meant when it said "do not indicate excellent health": that the doctors were directly contradicting Jackson's report. However, AFAIK the sources mostly report the outside doctors' opinions without actually saying "in a challenge to Jackson's report". And we live and die here by what the sources say. -- MelanieN ( talk) 23:34, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I believe one key difference is that "raise concerns" is weasel, possibly a double weasel as to whose concerns and what the concerns may be. "Do not indicate excellent health" conveys the meaning that according to diagnostic or statistical standards for the "excellent" fraction of the population, Trump's readings did not qualify. Just like the check engine light "indicates" trouble with your car, or the pop-out thingy indicates your Butterball turkey is cooked. SPECIFICO talk 00:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support MelanieN's version: "commented that his weight, lifestyle, and LDL cholesterol level may raise concerns about his cardiac health." It's factual, it's to the point, and it's encyclopedic. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:17, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Is the "may" necessary there? I think it would be better without the "may". Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 23:25, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Either someone's concerns have been raised or they haven't; there is no "may" here. — Compassionate727 ^{( T· C)} 23:35, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I'd be OK without the word "may". And maybe it should be "concern", singular, rather than "concerns", plural. -- MelanieN ( talk) 23:37, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

"May" is important for two reasons: It isn't said in Wikivoice that it does or doesn't raise concerns; medical conditions and medicine are uncertain and not absolute - what occurs with one person may not occur with another. The article should not reflect that there will be concerns about his cardiac health, only that there may be depending on certain factors (of which we are not privy because of HIPAA regulations). -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:46, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

That is incorrect. They are not stating he "may" have a heart attack. That would require the qualifier to reflect uncertainty. They are saying it does indicate risk/concern because readings like Trumps are associated with elevated incidences of disease and death. SPECIFICO talk 01:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

@ MelanieN: I would agree with SPECIFICO that your proposal waters down what the source reports. What's wrong with just quoting the New York Times headline with "serious heart concerns"? That sounds ominous enough to convey legitimate doubts from the interviewed cardiologists, and it's rightly attributed to them as relayed by the Gray Lady. We can dispense with "should" entirely.

Several outside cardiologists have commented that Trump's weight, lifestyle and LDL cholesterol level raise "serious heart concerns". ^[1]

Or shorter:

Several outside cardiologists have raised "serious heart concerns" about Trump's weight, lifestyle and LDL cholesterol level. ^[1]

I like this last one best. @ Mandruss, Galobtter, Dervorguilla, SPECIFICO, Winkelvi, Snooganssnoogans, and Compassionate727: Thoughts? — JFG ^talk 04:24, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

The first version is less awful. -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 04:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Trump's weight has serious heart concerns? Second version doesn't make sense. First version is better, and I agree that we don't need to water down the source Galobtter ( pingó mió) 05:31, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I would prefer the second version, except "about" isn't the correct preposition there, and I cannot determine what is. I'll say I favor the first one while I wrangle it mentally. — Compassionate727 ^{( T· C)} 11:57, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I don’t care if the NYT headline writers (in their eagerness to get things short enough for a headline) did used the phrase “serious heart concerns”; it is unclear and unmedical. None of the doctors used that phrase, although putting it in quotes implies that they did. What they mean is “serious concerns about his cardiac health” and that’s what we should be saying. -- MelanieN ( talk) 13:51, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with MelanieN. "Heart" is not an English adjective, except in headlines and bumperstickers. SPECIFICO talk 14:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Then Several outside cardiologists have commented that Trump's weight, lifestyle and LDL cholesterol level raise serious concerns about his cardiac health. Main problem I have with your version is the change from "raise serious concerns" to "may raise concerns"; also, the nytimes article does use "serious heart concerns" in the main text too. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 14:20, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes it does, in the lede paragraph. But again, that is a reporter talking, not a doctor. -- MelanieN ( talk) 15:03, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Maybe my English grammar is lacking, but to me "serious heart concerns" is fully equivalent to "serious concerns about his heart", just like a "serious heart disease" would be shorthand for a "serious disease of the heart". Of course, per Dervorguilla, Trump may have no heart so why should anyone be concerned? — JFG ^talk 15:31, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

It's not really important how we interpret it; it's important how we report it. No physician said "serious heart concerns" (and they wouldn't, that's not how doctors talk), so we should not say it (in quotes yet) as if we are reporting what an outside cardiologist said. -- MelanieN ( talk) 15:36, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Fine. What do you think of Galobtter's version? We should manage to close this discussion, it's not that hard. — JFG ^talk 15:55, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I support Galobtter's version. One of the real strengths of talk page discussion is when we manage to work out a consensus wording, which I think we may have done here. -- MelanieN ( talk) 16:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC) P.S. But we should get an opinion from Mandruss, who restored the original wording, precipitating this discussion. -- MelanieN ( talk) 16:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Nicely worded. -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 21:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

(Delayed response because there was no ping because your added comment was not on a separate line. I just happened to run across this.) I restored it on procedural grounds, and I'm still sitting out the content discussion. IOW I'm cool with anything you decide. ― Mandruss  ☎ 00:31, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• Not again - Leave it alone already. User:MelanieN wording 'prior consensus' is OBE, since User:Starship.paint edit of 10:06 11 March (saying LDL 143) was in place for a couple months it became the 'long-standing' defacto consensus. I do not love it but there it is. Frankly, if it is up for discussion I would suggest just delete the line as I see the article already has three other spots indicating routine issues or saying 'not excellent'. I see no reason that position needs more repetition or that the NYT article is WP:DUE specific mention. Rather doubt the position is even accurately a medical summation as it does not seem this is stating a different overall summary such as "good health". Instead it seems either trying to continue the prior unfounded speculations of health issues in NYT and elsewhere, or just a sniping of the specific word choice by the doctor responding to such stories. Cheers Markbassett ( talk) 05:57, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Closure proposal

Looks like we are close to consensus. From the discussion above, there seems to be enough support for the wording suggested by Galobtter:

Several outside cardiologists have commented that Trump's weight, lifestyle and LDL cholesterol level raise serious concerns about his cardiac health.

It's a good summary of the cited source, but I think it's a bit lopsided grammatically. I would suggest this instead:

Several outside cardiologists have raised serious concerns for about Trump's cardiac health due to his weight, lifestyle and LDL cholesterol level.

@ Compassionate727, Dervorguilla, Galobtter, Mandruss, Markbassett, MelanieN, Snooganssnoogans, SPECIFICO, Starship.paint, and Winkelvi: Can we all get on board with this? — JFG ^talk 09:51, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I think it'd be about Trump's cardiac health not for trump's cardiac health to have better grammar/clarity. Between that and one above I suggested I don't have much of a preference. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 09:58, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't like "outside" - how about "independent"? Chaheel Riens ( talk) 10:00, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

That sounds good, but begs the question "independent from whom?", just like "outside" begs "outside from where?" To simplify, we could remove the qualifier, just say "several cardiologists". — JFG ^talk 10:22, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

A fair and valid point. Chaheel Riens ( talk) 10:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Striking "outside" from proposal. — JFG ^talk 11:09, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Also changing "for" to "about" per Galobtter's remark. — JFG ^talk 11:11, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support version two proposed by JFG. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 13:14, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support version 2, and appreciate the collaboration displayed above. Mr Ernie ( talk) 13:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
• My take on the article is that the cardiologists are criticizing Jackson’s conclusions, saying that Trump's weight, lifestyle and LDL level ought to have raised serious concerns and not resulted in an assessment of "excellent cardiac health." I think we need to keep "outside" since they did not examine Trump themselves.

Several outside cardiologists commented that Trump's weight, lifestyle and LDL cholesterol level ought to have raised serious concerns about his cardiac health.

Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 13:35, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• Clarification? What article text are you proposing to replace? There are two sentences about doc's commenting on his cardio. BTW I think we should get rid of the chat about his other organs and systems. We don't have that kind of meaningless "dog bites man" detail in articles about other real estate developers or media personalities. If it attains importance due to his public office, then this detail belongs in the Presidency article. As I've said repeatedly to deaf ears, I think the whole health section is unnecessary as long as he's up and about, performing his daily routine. Doesn't seem noteworthy. Anyway, what article text would be replaced by one of these proposed alternatives. SPECIFICO talk 13:49, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• What is noteworthy about the 2018 exam is Dr. Jackson's unprecedented and unconvincing performance for the media. But this, if it is to be addressed, should be discussed explicitly rather than by a SYTNH juxtaposition that suggests Jackson, apparently like Bornstein, was indifferent to the presenting the truth or was under some irresistible pressure to dissemble. There are ample RS that discuss this issue. Liver and cholesterol details are UNDUE. SPECIFICO talk 13:54, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the sentence about the liver and cholesterol details should be removed. We don't need all the details, especially they seem to have been selectively released; Dr. Altman, the source for the next sentence, points out that Dr. Bornstein omitted to mention tests of kidney functions (all that diet coke taking its toll?) while mentioning liver, thyroid, prostate; WH lab results also do not show the GFR which would indicate whether there is kidney disease or risk of kidney disease. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 16:15, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I was wondering about the two sentences (Several prominent physicians who have not examined Trump have commented that his weight, lifestyle, and test results do not indicate excellent health. Several outside cardiologists have commented that Trump's weight, lifestyle and LDL cholesterol level should raise "serious heart concerns".) but assumed that the first one is completely off the table by now and nobody wanted to delete it before this discussion has ended. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 14:14, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

@ Space4Time3Continuum2x: I started to remove the second sentence [8] (that was before this discussion was opened), but self-reverted per 1RR, [9] assuming that someone else would see that and spend their 1R. No one did. ― Mandruss  ☎ 14:43, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I would replace "physicians who did not examine" with "outside cardiologists" but other than that I also think this version would be better.

Several outside cardiologists commented that his weight, lifestyle, and test results do not indicate excellent health.

It's not just about cardiac health, but about overall health (stroke, kidney failure, etc.). Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 16:03, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• I want to keep either "outside" or "independent"; they are the shortened version of the original "who have not personally examined Trump" and that's an important qualifier. I did prefer the earlier version - where a, b, and c raised serious concerns - rather than the doctors raising the serious concerns. And I will accept "ought to have raised" so I will endorse SpaceTime's suggestion. -- MelanieN ( talk) 13:59, 5 June 2018 (UTC) -- MelanieN ( talk) 17:44, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

UPDATE: SpaceTime has now made two proposals, and I am OK with either of them. -- MelanieN ( talk) 17:44, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

PLEA- If anyone thinks they know what proposal is on the table, could you please enter it below in a big green box? One or two sentences on the prominent physicians' comments? Kidneys? Liver? Heart health? This is an example of the oft-repeated dysfunction we run into with these superficially structured but in fact very muddled and unclear polls that may lock in the parts of an elephant for 100 blind editors who are feeling tail, trunk, and cholesterol. SPECIFICO talk 16:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• 1st Q: Are these serious concerns about his heart the result of exams and EKGs performed on the patient by all these outside doctors? 2nd Q: Who cares what outside doctors think? 3rd Q: Is the importance of including material about this so-called heart condition diagnosed by outside doctors a subliminal message to Congress to "wait for it..." - no need to worry about impeachment? ^{FBDB Atsme 📞 📧} 17:38, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Looking on the bright side, we're no longer discussing hypothetical meetings, or bonespurs, hair ... Here' the entire paragraph with my two proposals; maybe other editors will follow suit.

Option A:

In December 2015, Trump's personal physician, Harold Bornstein, released a superlative-laden letter of health praising Trump for "extraordinary physical strength and stamina".[71] Bornstein later said that Trump himself had dictated the contents.[72]A followup medical report showed Trump's blood pressure, liver and thyroid functions to be in normal ranges.[73] Trump is overweight and takes statins to lower his cholesterol level.[74] In January 2018, Trump was examined by White House physician Ronny Jackson, who stated that he was in excellent health, although his weight and cholesterol level were higher than recommended,[67] and that the cardiac assessment revealed no medical issues.[75] Several outside cardiologists commented that Trump's weight, lifestyle and LDL cholesterol level ought to have raised serious concerns about his cardiac health.[76] Trump requested to undergo a cognition test, and passed the Montreal Cognitive Assessment with a score of 30/30.[77]

Option B:

In December 2015, Trump's personal physician, Harold Bornstein, released a superlative-laden letter of health praising Trump for "extraordinary physical strength and stamina".[71] Bornstein later said that Trump himself had dictated the contents.[72]A followup medical report showed Trump's blood pressure, liver and thyroid functions to be in normal ranges.[73] Trump is overweight and takes statins to lower his cholesterol level.[74] In January 2018, Trump was examined by White House physician Ronny Jackson, who stated that he was in excellent health, although his weight and cholesterol level were higher than recommended,[67] and that the cardiac assessment revealed no medical issues.[75] Several outside cardiologists commented that his weight, lifestyle, and test results do not indicate excellent health.[76] Trump requested to undergo a cognition test, and passed the Montreal Cognitive Assessment with a score of 30/30.[77]

Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 18:02, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Prefer A but support B as alternative Admirably concise and complete text in both versions. Both reflects all of the discussion on this page. Thanks 432x. SPECIFICO talk 18:48, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Gee, and I thought we were close to consensus this morning... Alright, one more round. Regarding proposals A and B above, I strongly disagree with removing the sentence: A followup medical report showed Trump's blood pressure, liver and thyroid functions to be in normal ranges. This followup report was the only real data about Trump's health during the campaign; if we want to shorten this part, we better remove the sensationalist content-free letter that gushed about Trump becoming the "healthiest person ever elected to the presidency". Then, regarding the sentence that has been under discussion in this thread, i.e. the assessment by outside cardiologists, I still prefer the stronger wording "serious concerns" rather than the watered-down "not excellent health" proposed here, so that's version A, minus the "ought to have raised" which is again some unnecessary watering-down of the cardiologists' assessment. Note that my first version way up top of the thread said the data should raise "serious heart concerns", which is close to the ought to have raised serious concerns about his cardiac health now being floated. Space4Time3Continuum2x Is it more important to say that the interviewed cardiologists disagreed with the White House doctor, or that they estimated that published weight and cholesterol data should raise serious concerns? I think the latter is more significant, notwithstanding all the trash that was later thrown at Jackson for unrelated reasons (his nomination to VA). — JFG ^talk 21:46, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Prefer A but will accept B. I am OK with leaving out the BP, liver, and thyroid details. In either case we should delete the redundant sentence Trump is overweight and takes statins to lower his cholesterol level.[74] The same information is in the following sentence. -- MelanieN ( talk) 21:59, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Overweight is a repeat but statins is not; we should keep that one. Just say He takes statins to lower his cholesterol level. — JFG ^talk 22:23, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Then you would still have cholesterol in two adjacent sentences. Remove the first sentence; the second sentence deals with both weight and cholesterol. -- MelanieN ( talk) 17:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

OK, I've done that, and just tacked "and takes statin" at the end of the previous sentence. The link allows readers to understand what a statin is for. — JFG ^talk 21:45, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Support A. No point in saying "test results", it's not helpful, whereas "LDL cholesterol level" is specific. starship .paint ~ KO 07:58, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Implemented option A plus amendment about "statin" discussed with MelanieN. Thanks everybody for the constructive discussion. — JFG ^talk 21:45, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• User:JFG Meh. A tiny bit untrue at the line 'Several outside cardiologists' and '"serious concerns"' -- I'd drop the quotes about "serious concerns" since it is not a literal quote, and suggest better is just WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE "Outside doctors — who have not directly examined Mr. Trump — questioned that conclusion, saying that the combination of Mr. Trump’s weight and the cardiac test results raised more concerns than Dr. Jackson’s comments would reflect.", possibly prefaced by attribution "According to the NY Times" since the phrasing is the journalists. The article did not characterize the four named doctors explicitly as cardiologists, though I think only Dr. Gupta as medical correspondent for CNN is not, or sayhow manyoutside opinions they selected among. Still see no reason to be spending much time over good to excellent health with ordinary and minor flaws, giving a minor NYT article of scrounged-up comments prominence, or skipping the context and greater weight in months of false health stories before the report by Dr. Jackson. Cheers Markbassett ( talk) 04:18, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I will remove the quotes (which are not meant to be "scary" but can give this impression). The source does interview several cardiologists, and they are talking about Trump's cardiovascular risk, so that's due (they contradict the CNN guy about a calcium test but that doesn't matter). For the rest, it's true that a lot of context is omitted, especially why Trump had to respond to rumors about his mental health. I guess you could yet propose another wording in a new thread. In the meantime we have enough consensus for this one. — JFG ^talk 06:00, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

User:JFG - the CNN guy I think is a ioneurologist -- the other three I think are Cardiologists aat least in background, though 'director' may indicate having moved on to management work. Not se if there are "several" but I suppose they might have not named a couple of people not being quoted. Still feels a bit of jobbing for a story the NYT cobbled up though. Cheers Markbassett ( talk) 23:37, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

p.s. Perhaps just extend consensus #21 to omit opinions of academics and doctors who have not examined him. Cheers again Markbassett ( talk) 04:21, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I just read Hillary Clinton#Second half of tenure remembering how ill she fell (literally, on several occasions on camera) before and during the presidential campaign, primarily because I wanted to see how her health concerns had been treated in her BLP - you know, consistency among like topics. The only mention about her health is in the last paragraph of that section. We have more speculation and opinions about Trump's health based on speculation by journalists and doctors who have never examined him. It's comical. It should not require any mention beyond the fact that his 2 doctors said he was in good to excellent health but needs to watch his weight and cholesterol. Unlike Clinton, he never fainted, or fell down the stairs, or had to be carried into his limo - so what's why the inconsistency in how similar information is handled other than the fact they are political opposites? ^{Atsme 📞 📧} 07:01, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh dear. Yet another Trump fan still wanting to tell us how bad Hillary apparently still is. I have a secret for you. Trump won. You can forget about Hillary now. In summary, it's irrelevant. See WP:OtherStuffExists. HiLo48 ( talk) 07:56, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I guess that's because, for better or for worse, WP articles on current politics tend to follow the bulk of news covfefe. — JFG ^talk 07:11, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Atsme - yes, WEIGHT tends to give space to fads, but for Hillary there were not just false rumors but actual health possible in a couple of falls, coughing issues, and the campaign collapse. And then there were imagined issues with her being helped up stairs, story about an injector pen on hand, and propped up on pillows because supposedly could not support herself. I think at that article the equivalent of consensus #21 was chosen -- and medical stories from anyone not examining her were viewed as BLPGOSSIP. Cheers Markbassett ( talk) 23:45, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Which in essence, sets a precedent - one that, in this case, was dismissed for unconvincing reasons. Our PAGs set a precedent, and if we abide by our PAGs for one article, those same PAGs should apply to all articles; i.e., what's good for goose is good for the gander. ^{Atsme 📞 📧} 23:54, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

1. Why doesn't the intro state Trump's record low approval rating, as described in the body? [at Donald Trump#Political image.]
2. Why doesn't it describe his record low rating among journalist fact-checkers? [also described in the body: Donald Trump#Campaign rhetoric and Donald Trump#False statements.]
3. Why doesn't it convey the Trump administration's record number of criminal indictments?
4. Why is it silent on the record number of resignations under Trump?

I propose that these omissions from the introduction be corrected. EllenCT ( talk) 18:08, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Check the archives of this page, that has all been discussed. PackMecEng ( talk) 18:16, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I just did for #3 and find no discussion of including the record number of criminal indictments in the introduction, so would you please provide links? EllenCT ( talk) 18:22, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

In order: "approval ratings" are extremely variable, I'm sure Nixon had worse at some point. There's nothing particularly meaningful to say there. Regarding fact-checkers, "many of his public statements were controversial or false" should cover that, though it's a bit buried in its current location. Regarding indictments: the Russia thing is already talked about, I'm not sure that a "record number of criminal indictments" specifically is worth discussing. The resignations/firings are certainly unusual, if you have a specific sentence to propose I might support that addition. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 18:26, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Let's just take the first one. How "extreme" is "extremely variable"? And "at some point" is not the appropriate point of comparison. The appropriate point of comparison is "the same number of days into a presidency". And the only president who has come close to being so unpopular for so long is Gerald Ford (Nixon (almost) never dipped below 50%, while Trump has never broke 46%) [10]

That's the thing - why this is such a glaring omission. Yes, maybe for a "normal" president, approval ratings are indeed "extremely variable" (generally not true, but let's say it is). But not for *this* president. They've been consistently low, staying in the range between 37% and 45%. THAT makes it a notable fact in and of itself and THAT is why it should be included. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 18:44, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

(the other unique aspect of this presidency, is that most presidents start with HIGH approval ratings and then go downhill from there (exception is Bush Jr. who got a big boost after 9/11. And Reagan and Clinton managed a bit of a comeback towards the end of their second term). Trump started low and stayed low. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 18:46, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

The proof of his unpopularity will be GOP losses in the House in November. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 18:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Maybe (Congress is generally more unpopular than the President, and that unpopularity tends to be more bipartisan). But that's a separate topic. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 19:08, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

And this is not the Page semi-protected Presidency of Donald Trump article, so what goes on there is irrelevant to this none.

As to the points raised.

Why doesn't the intro state Trump's record low approval rating, as described in the body? Because it is a variable, and hardly one of the most important anythings about him.

Why doesn't it describe his record low rating among journalist fact-checkers, If you mean fact checking websites. Is his at a record low, a source for that please (and also again this would be variable).

Why doesn't it convey the Trump administration's record number of criminal indictments?, is it a record number it is lower then a number of presidents and may of the incitements listed are nothing to do directly with him.

Why is it silent on the record number of resignations under Trump, valid point, can any one give a good reason why not? Slatersteven ( talk) 19:10, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

"Because it is a variable, and hardly one of the most important anythings about him." Again, as has been pointed out numerous times, this just isn't true. His approval rating has been fairly stable, moving in the 37-45 range, which is below pretty much ANY president (except Gerald Ford) since approval ratings were a thing. And while it may not be the "most important thing" here, it most certainly is one of the most important things about his presidency. So at the very least it should be in that article. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 09:27, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I would not say a 10 point difference if fairly stable (ohh and in January it was as low as 36, now up to 40 (WELL LAST TIME i CHECKED)). And again this is not the place to discus what we do on another article. And a number of presidents have had lower approval ratings, hardly therefore a record breaker. Slatersteven ( talk) 09:51, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

8 point, not 10 point (45-37=8) and yes, that's pretty stable as the graphs on the link I provided illustrate. And no, it's not true that "a number of presidents have had lower approval ratings" (at least not at this point in their presidency). Only one that comes close is Gerald Ford. Did you even look at the source? Volunteer Marek ( talk) 17:53, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Let’s remember that this article is a biography of Donald Trump. He has already lived a long and colorful and highly-reported life before becoming president, and we can’t let the lede act as if nothing else in his life mattered.

• 1: Approval ratings: not even in the article as far as I can tell; way too transient to be mentioned in the lede. AFAIK polling results are never mentioned in the lede of a currently serving politician (see Justin Trudeau, Angela Merkel, etc.); there is usually some kind of summary in the lede for former presidents but Trump is not that. Maybe we could insert a link somewhere pointing to the highly detailed and current article Opinion polling on the Donald Trump administration.
• 2 is discussed in the body in detail, in its own subsection “False statements”, and it is implied in the lede, in wording that has been repeatedly debated and consensus reached to do it exactly as it now is.
• 3 - several of the indictments are mentioned in the Investigation section.
• 4 is in the article, under Personnel.

I oppose adding any of these things to the lede. -- MelanieN ( talk) 19:11, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

All of the points raised have been addressed, no change is necessary until new developments occur. Same rationale as MelanieN. — JFG ^talk 19:51, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

@ MelanieN: the sources you are looking for are at Donald Trump#Political image for the record low approval ratings, and Donald Trump#Campaign rhetoric and Donald Trump#False statements for the worst fact-checking reviews in history. Yes, all of these facts are already in the body of the article. Why are these four record-breaking statistics among all presidents not worthy of inclusion in the introduction? EllenCT ( talk) 23:58, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Ellen, there are a lot of things about him that are unique. We mention several of them in the lede: oldest, wealthiest, etc. There are others that we hint at. There are others that we don’t mention at this point; maybe their significance will become clearer in hindsight (after all we don’t know how his presidency is going to turn out) and will be added to the lede then. This is a very long article, the biography of a very full life; the lede is for summarizing the most important points; for now, the things you want to add to the lede do not seem to have achieved consensus that they belong there. -- MelanieN ( talk) 03:23, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the fullness of his life somehow diminishes the noteworthiness of his record statistics among US presidents? EllenCT ( talk) 14:40, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

@ EllenCT: I'm hard pressed to see that POTUS has had an especially "full life", but at any rate I don't think these articles are going to achieve stable excellent form until there are plenty of tertiary sources that analyze and recount the news developments and establish due weight. There are already many such sources about Trump's life -- well researched books, e.g. and it's distressing to see some -- like the acclaimed book for which the authors painstakingly interviewed Trump's Penn classmates and researched contemporaneous publications -- dismissed out of hand as if they were tabloid screeds. But there are many other books, and we should step back from the daily developments from time to time and fold in their narratives and characterizations of POTUS. I suspect you could find lots of under-represented information, well documented and verifiable in such sources. And it would be very hard for WP editors to argue against including the most prominent and noteworthy of it. SPECIFICO talk 20:36, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

"Indictments" number seem overly broad. There are no ties between the russian nationalist hacker indictments and Trump. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:16e:3d22:c76d:817f:9403 ( talk) 09:20, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

A web search on "ties between the russian nationalist hacker indictments and Trump" yeilds these top hits: "Here are members of Team Trump who are known to have Russian connections and the story lines that have made those ties relevant", our article Links between Trump associates and Russian officials, and, "the really juicy information to emerge Monday involved the confessions of George Papadopoulos, a former Trump campaign adviser who pleaded guilty this month to lying to federal investigators about his contacts with figures he thought had links to the Russian government. One of these contacts included an April 2016 exchange with a foreign professor with Russian affiliations who claimed the Kremlin had "dirt" on Hillary Clinton". But why is this an issue? I proposed that the introduction describe the record number of indictments (and record low approval, record low honesty, and record high resignations) not anything about the Russians, yet. EllenCT ( talk) 14:35, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

The issue is that most of the Mueller indictments are totally unrelated to Donald Trump as a BLP subject here. They are side effects of the investigation into Russian interference, which uncovered prior crimes and some lies to investigators. See the above thread #Peripheral indictments in lead for a more detailed reasoning. — JFG ^talk 21:04, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

"Some lies to investigators" are crimes relating to their service to and affiliation with Trump. In the USA it's a crime to lie to the Feds, to banks, to government agencies, etc. etc. SPECIFICO talk 02:38, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

That is correct. And it's also correct that none of the Trump-related people were indicted for anything they did in relation with Russia, only Papadopoulos and Flynn for what they said, or rather omitted to say. Nobody linked to Trump was indicted for attempting to manipulate the election with the help of the Kremlin. — JFG ^talk 04:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Yet all of these people were part of the Trump campaign. "Oh, yes, Trump campaign people were indicted, but look they were indicted for THIS crime, not for THAT crime, so that makes it ok!" How does that make any sense? Volunteer Marek ( talk) 11:02, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I have too much respect for your sense of logic to spell it out for you. — JFG ^talk 15:53, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

RFC on record low approval, dishonesty, indictments, and resignations

RFC extended discussion

Throwing this outside the !voting area. (A) as written I still feel is straight-up false; he may have the lowest first-year approval ratings, or it may be the most polarized approval ratings (a recent poll said his same-party approval was one of the highest; possibly due to anti-Trump Republicans declaring themselves independents). (B) could be a good replacement for the His campaign received extensive free media coverage; many of his public statements were controversial or false. sentence, which is clearly a compromise. Regarding (C), are all the indictments related to the Russia stuff? If so, it should go somewhere in the existing paragraph, which is also starting to suffer from a large number of modifications. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 23:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Re (a), for many months the article has stated, "Presidential approval polls taken during the first ten months of Trump's term have shown him to be the least popular U.S. president in the history of modern opinion polls." Re (c) all seventeen of the people who have been indicted or pled guilty have been associated with Russian interference in the election, but some of their specific charges are unrelated to it, having to do with money laundering or making false statements on forms. EllenCT ( talk) 23:54, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Another reason why (c) should not be included is that as worded it is not accurate. You propose to say More of his administration's officials have been indicted  but that is not correct. Actually only one of the indicted people was an “official in his administration”; three others were associated with his campaign; the rest (the California man, the Dutch guy, and all the Russians) were neither.-- MelanieN ( talk) 00:04, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

(A) Yuck yuck. The references only compare to polls in the third quarter of the first year of the presidency. Once I figure out how to explain that clearly, I'll propose a revision to that sentence. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 23:57, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Floating a radical idea.

Not counting the introductory two sentences, 68% of the lead (by word count) is about his 2016 campaign, election, and presidency-to-date. That is by far the most significant part of his life, but 68% still seems a bit much for <5% of his life. I think ~60% would be a good limit, so a few things would need to exit the lead.

But whatever the percentage x%, I think we need a zero-growth policy that would keep it at ~x% for the duration of the term, regardless of how dramatically (or traumatically) that plays out. Thus, for each new thing we decided to add, we would have to remove something of lesser significance to his overall life. If he entered the U.S. into another undeclared war, for example, his imposition of import tariffs would suddenly seem less lead-worthy by comparison, so a swap would make sense.

Forgive my venial sin of quantification, but some kind of discipline like this seems the most (only?) practical way to keep the lead of this biography at a reasonable size and prevent it from being completely overwhelmed by his presidency. ― Mandruss  ☎ 21:38, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Approaching this from another direction, it seems to me that this bio article contains altogether too much play-by-play from his Presidency and that it would benefit from a ruthless trimming of material that rightly belongs only in his Presidency or other politics-related articles. SPECIFICO talk 21:50, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. The hard part is getting consensus on what should stay and what should go. But I'm willing to work on it. — JFG ^talk 21:56, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

@ Mandruss:I share your concerns about excess detail, but I prefer to let things ebb and flow organically. The lede has been pretty stable in length over the last couple years. No worries. And let's face it: Trump's campaign and presidency may only represent 5% of his time on this Earth, but it's easily 80% of the attention he is getting. His prior life as a real-estate magnate cum playboy is not all that encyclopedic. — JFG ^talk 21:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• I don't think a hard number is useful. If he does a lot of extremely noteworthy things as President, then we need to include them in the lead of his biography, even if it's a bit awkward - there's no getting around that. -- Aquillion ( talk) 01:18, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Mandruss - I'd prefer simplify, shorten, and summarize in general. Leave the detail for later, and yes keep the Presidential material mostly in that article as OFFTOPIC for here. Markbassett ( talk) 05:09, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't think a hard rule is helpful here, but I support this as a general principle. Unless something truly unexpected and important (World War III) happens, Trump's accomplishments as president should largely replace less-important events from the first part of his term in the lead section. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 20:16, 8 June 2018 (UTC)