Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 100

Merger of Health of Donald Trump
A deletion discussion has resulted in a consensus to merge Health of Donald Trump here. I propose that this merger should include all content in that article cited to sources generally considered to be reliable sources. Thoughts? bd2412 T 23:16, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it would be better off in a different article, such as a longer one called "Personal Life of Donald Trump" that includes a lot of the extra information from the "Family and personal life" section of his current article. The "Family and personal life" section of his article is far too long, especially compared to other presidents, and it could be its own article and combined with the Health of Donald Trump. BobRoberts14 (talk) 23:19, 13 June 2019 (UTC)BobRoberts14


 * Oppose for the reasons mentioned in the close. Hopefully we don't have to get a review of the close because there were too many that said drop the armchair analysis and leave only the valid medical diagnosis based on an actual examination. Atsme Talk 📧 00:15, 14 June 2019 (UTC) Adding - BD2412, your edit summary:  (→‎Health of Donald Trump: I am amenable to the compromise proposal TParis has made above to convert this into an article specifically on the phenomenon of a substantial number of mental health professionals making claims about a specific patient that they have not examined, and the response of the APA and other governing bodies to that practice.) Atsme  Talk 📧 01:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Send to Personal life of Donald Trump, along with content from here. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Speedy close We had this discussion, BD2412. Jo-Jo's closure rationale summed up the consensus that only some of the material gets copied per WP:BLP, WP:MEDRS and WP:GOSSIP.  Restarting this discussion and hoping for a different result is disruptive.--v/r - TP 01:11, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The outcome of the discussion was merge. The question now is what, specifically, should be merged. bd2412  T 01:27, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That's an oversimplification of the result. A simplification that favors you.  The full closure states "there seems to be a consensus that some of the material [emphasis mine] should be covered somewhere (such as in Donald Trump)".  The entire 4th paragraph covers this.  The final statement in that paragraph states "That does not rule out that content could be copied into other articles if need be, of course." which supports my interpretation because this sentence would be unnecessary if the closer intended to read consensus as "merge all".--v/r - TP 02:03, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't say "merge all". I proposed to merge "all content in that article cited to sources generally considered to be reliable sources". Anything in the article that is not reliably sourced should, of course, be excluded from any merge. bd2412  T 03:19, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You literally said "I propose that this merger should include all content in that article," in other words, "merge all". All of that does not belong in his main article. Bob Roberts 03:21, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * If you stopped reading the sentence at that point, you missed out on a pretty important qualification. bd2412  T 04:07, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, BD2412, but that explanation doesn't make sense. All content on Wikipedia needs to be cited to reliable sources.  Especially on a BLP and especially with regards to medical information about a BLP and especially in areas of discretionary sanctions.  If there was any content that wasn't connected to a RS, then we all should've removed it already.  So, I have a hard time understanding what you think the delta is between what was in that article and what is reliably sourced.  In this case, "all reliably sourced content" and "all content" should be synonymous.  So, it seems to me that you do want to copy all content.  My argument is that despite the reliable sourcing, much of this is speculation and gossip and isn't suitable for a encyclopedia - especially not with regard to medical information.  That's why I am okay with having the content in another context, but not in the context of Donald Trump's health.  It's not responsible of us as editors to do that.--v/r - TP 11:24, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose The article Health of Donald Trump has way too much fluff, including a ton of speculation. The article should have just been deleted, and a small amount of the information should be included here, or in a new article called "Personal Life of Donald Trump", since his section has far more than that of any other President, especially when including sub-articles. Including "all the content" would increase this article's length way too much, and make his health seem more important than any of the other Personal Life sub-sections. Bob Roberts 01:17, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I would agree with having a Personal life of Donald Trump article, with the health information being included there. Health information can be condensed to a more summary style, but it is still worth mentioning that the various health assessments that have been made have, in fact, been made and responded to. There have been several occasions where Trump has assessed his own mental health, verbally or by tweet, as being a "stable genius". He has not said these things in a vacuum. bd2412  T 01:33, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that his health is important, but there is far too much information in the Health of Donald Trump article to include it all in the article Donald Trump. Much of it is just trivial information that is not very important. Bob Roberts 01:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Triviality is, to a degree, a matter of opinion. I think, for example, that it is a notable historical fact that Trump is clinically obese - the first clinically obese President since William Howard Taft (Clinton was close, but his BMI never rose from the "overweight" to the "obese" category), and one of only six clinically obese Presidents in U.S. history (the others were Taft, Teddy Roosevelt, William McKinley, Grover Cleveland, and Zachary Taylor). I don't think that it is necessary to include all of the third-party mental health assessments, but it is worth mentioning that a number of mental health professionals have made negative assessments, for which they were criticized by their governing body, and that Trump's response was to state on several occasions that he was a stable genius. bd2412  T 03:26, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Notability isn't a matter of opinion though. It should depend on how important the reliable sources consider that to be. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:35, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * First off, did Wikipedia just have an update? I previously only saw white and black while editing in source editor, but now I also see other colors, such as blue, green, and purple. Second, I did not say the entire article is trivial, I said that most of it is. More than half the article is just repeating the same things: trump's physicians said he does not have any problems, most psychiatrists believe he is narcissistic, and he is obese. Bob Roberts 03:41, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * We have generally determined notability based on whether something is in fact independently reported in multiple reliable sources. How important is it? Well, there are plenty of notable people whose health reliable sources generally do not comment on at all, unless something drastic happens (for example, there is currently substantial reporting on the health of David Ortiz, who was recently shot, and I think everyone would agree that his health status after being shot is now a notable piece of information to include in the article). As I said, I have no problem condensing the several paragraphs of armchair psychiatry down to a single sentence indicating that this is what third-party mental health experts have tended to say. bd2412  T 04:14, 14 June 2019 (UTC)


 * (Closing admin of the AFD on the Health of Donald Trump article) On request on my talk page, I've amended the closing statement on the AFD a little; people in this discussion might be interested in it. One consideration is that people have been concerned that normal reliable sources might not necessarily be reliable in this context of medical information. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:40, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * - re "the good material supported by top-notch sources", just for clarification, would "top-notch sources" include any of the following: CNN, BBC News, NBC News, Fox News, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Hill, The New Yorker, Time, Vox, Vanity Fair, Mother Jones, The New Republic, Forbes, The Independent, U.S. News, The Atlantic, and Psychology Today? bd2412  T 12:04, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The discussion didn't specify any source, but I'd probably be wary of all news media. They are typically not very good sources for specific medical information. Also anything overly trivial, gossipy or based on armchair analysis as these are the things that have raised concerns in the discussion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:29, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Trump's mental health was the topic e.g. of the book The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump by 27 leading psychiatrists and psychologists. Many articles published in news media describe the assessments of such experts. Obviously we shouldn't use random news media as sources for "specific medical information", the issue here is more about expert assessment of publicly available information than about "specific medical information" as that term is typically understood. --Tataral (talk) 12:37, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * There is already consensus to merge the content into this article so the opposes and speedy closes here are without effect.- MrX 🖋 12:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. It has already been decided that the article on his health is to be merged into this article. If anyone opposes that decision they will need to bring it up at Deletion review. I myself opposed merging the articles and argued that most of the health material belongs in a sub article rather than the main article, but evidently most editors didn't agree with that and thought the material should be covered here. So now we need to include the material of that article somewhere here. The bulk of the material, that is also the most relevant and that has the best references, is about his mental health, an extremely notable topic that has received an extreme amount of very high-quality coverage (there are no books or scholarly works on his physical health, which is regarded as a somewhat trivial and unremarkable topic of little relevance for his conduct as president or his policies). --Tataral (talk) 12:19, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support merge with caveats - surely local consensus here trumps whatever was decided at the other article? At a time when we are desperately trying to find ways to trim the article, we don't need a bunch of health cruft dumped in here as well. We need to be extremely choosy about what we include, regardless of the outcome of that deletion discussion. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:52, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Cmt: It wasn't really decided "at [another] article" but as part of the wider and more public AfD process, and there is an established way to appeal an AfD decision: Deletion review. I think the decision was wrong and that the vast majority of the material belongs in a separate sub article and not here, precisely because we're trying to trim the article, but that's the decision that was made. --Tataral (talk) 15:15, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * @ Just ignore Tataral. He's ignoring consensus at the AfD which was to only merge some.  That's in line with how you feel as well.--v/r - TP 21:28, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * There is an established procedure for you to appeal the decision to merge if you disagree with it: Deletion review. Otherwise I suggest that you knock it off. --Tataral (talk) 23:56, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with the close. I disagree with your interpretation of it.  Jo-Jo is very clear that the consensus is that only some of the material gets merged.  You're intentionally disregarding that bit and I am tempted to take you to WP:AE over your blatant disregard for it.  I have no need for deletion review because my reading of Jo-Jo's close takes their entire closure into context.--v/r - TP 01:12, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * OPPOSE - being deleted largely because of material not worth having in a daughter article, much less deserving of a more prominent position here. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Health and lifestyle proposal
I propose this as a merge/replacement for the current content under 'Health and lifestyle'. I trimmed some of the existing material to keep the size roughly the same.

- MrX 🖋 14:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * ETA: Added two full sources as requested by MelanieN and removed second WL of narcissistic personality disorder.- MrX 🖋 18:07, 14 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Support. That looks like a reasonable proposal. --Tataral (talk) 15:21, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support with caveats - Yes, a very good bit of work, that. Nicely done, MrX. I'm thinking that last paragraph might need a little bit of fettling though. The double mention (and linking) of narcissistic personality disorder should probably be altered, but otherwise it's real close to being there. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:35, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, in agreement with the caveats suggested by MrX. Narcissistic personality disorder need only be mentioned once, so I would end the last sentence after "in terms of psychiatric diseases". I would include Trump's reply, repeatedly describing himself as a "stable genius" in January 2018,, July 2018, and May 2019. bd2412  T 17:29, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support with the minor modifications suggested above. I think that's a good and defensible addition. It leaves out almost all of the speculation and commentary and opinion about his mental health, and that's a GOOD thing. Several people pointed out at the deletion discussion, and the closer reiterated above, that any medical information might have to pass the strict requirements of MEDRS, not just our usual RS requirements. Virtually nothing in the to-be-merged article meets that criterion, so a brief summary like this is the best approach. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:41, 14 June 2019 (UTC) P.S. Could you please provide the full citations for references 22 and 23? I would like to propose a reworking of the last two sentences and I need to know what the sources say. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:48, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the citations. Give me a little time, those are very poor references. I want to see if I can find something better and more current for this material. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:12, 14 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Support MrX's proposed change. Looks good to me.--v/r - TP 19:38, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with MelanieN's version too.--v/r - TP 20:33, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – Covers the main events from various sources. I'd cut down on the Bornstein story, though; it feels tabloid-like. We can do that after the merge. — JFG talk 20:26, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose No doctor of any repute would render a judgement on something like Narcissistic personality disorder without performing numerous and likely confidential one-on-ones with the subject. Therefore, these are opinions from afar, and akin to when similar doctors tried to label GWBush as a Dry Drunk, it was 14 years ago during that argument on that article that such things were determined to be suitable for a mainline BLP, and I really don't think such speculation belongs on this website at all. Not only did Dry Drunk not withstand the test of time, this type of judgement from afar won't either. Dry Drunk isn't even linked to any page now related to GWBush......yet back then there was a big row over whether it woudl appear in the article even including a Rfc on that content.--MONGO (talk) 20:43, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I can't find the quotes right now, but somewhere it was stated that mental diagnosis nowadays relies much less on in-depth interviews with the patient and much more on observing the patient's functioning and behavior. That goes along with what I have read about changes in the approach to psychotherapy - that it has been moving away from deep psychoanalysis toward simply helping the person to improve their functioning, attitudes, and quality of life. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:43, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

OK, I have spent some time researching this and getting additional and more current/authoritative sources. Most of the sources from the article we are merging were from 2017 or earlier. I also added Trump's own opinion of his mental health. So I have a revised proposal for the last paragraph: Numerous public figures, media sources, and mental health professionals have speculated that Trump may have mental health challenges. The most common diagnosis cited is narcissistic personality disorder; some cite delusional disorder; some suggest some form of early dementia. In April 2017 more than 25,000 mental health professional signed a letter stating that in their professional judgement, "Donald Trump they believe Trump "manifests serious mental illness". that renders him psychologically incapable of competently discharging the duties of President of the United States." In October 2017, psychiatrist Bandy X. Lee published The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump, containing essays from 27 psychologists, psychiatrists, and mental health professionals on the danger they believe that Trump's mental health poses to the nation and to individual well being. They argued that the president's issues affected the mental health of the United States population, and that he placed the country at grave risk of war because of his mental traits. Trump has dismissed questions regarding his mental health, saying that he is a "very stable genius" and that he has "one of the great memories of all time".

Comments? -- MelanieN (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That looks good to me. Thanks for pitching in.- MrX 🖋 20:34, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the more recent sources, but please remove the long mention of and quote from the "25,000 mental health professionals" letter; that's exactly the kind of armchair medical opinion tainted by political bias that unduly adorned the "Health" article. The Bandy Lee book is plenty enough for this line of reasoning. — JFG talk 20:40, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I do want to mention the letter so that the book isn't the only source we have for this sort of claim. If that full quote seems to be political we could shorten it to stating that in their professional judgement, "Donald Trump manifests a serious mental illness." -- MelanieN (talk) 21:35, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Fine with the trimmed quote, and I'd remove "in their professional judgment" too, because we just called them "mental health professionals". — JFG talk 21:41, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't really think there is a problem, here. The difference was that the Health of Donald Trump article captured every little bit of every little insignificant remark folks have made. This is one of the more significant pieces and it's inclusion isn't undue. One long paragraph is a significant improvement over an entire article of cruft.--v/r - TP 20:43, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That looks perfect to me as well. --Tataral (talk) 01:00, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Let's give it one more day for input before adding it. I take it everyone is OK with the rest of the modifications MrX suggested? -- MelanieN (talk) 14:48, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support MelanieN's rework of MrX's language. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:12, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * OPPOSE - User:MelanieN para 1 and 2 are fine, 3 and 4 marginal (prefer trim or do without), and 5 definitely not. That one runs contrary to consensus #21, and regardless that somewhere else is being deleted, it’s still excluded here by prior consensus.   Cheers  Markbassett (talk) 23:31, 16 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose to the context of the proposed wording as being noncompliant with NPOV. Yes, there has been much speculation but that should not be the focus of his health - that's opinion. We are supposed to be fact-based when it comes to health issues and there is far too much weight being placed on speculation. We state what the examination by medical professionals have determined, and then we add a sentence or two about the wide-spread speculation by news sources and political opponents, which is factual and accurate and in the context it should be presented. Atsme Talk 📧 18:46, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Assessments by (in this case, numerous and reputable) experts, based on publicly available, verifiable information and mainstream scholarship (e.g. in psychology), and published in reliable sources of good quality, including academic books and papers, are not "speculation" by "political opponents." There is no Wikipedia policy or guideline that the private opinions of his private doctors are any more relevant than the opinions of experts cited by reliable sources; in fact the opinions of the doctors he himself has chosen to consult are mostly relevant as a reflection of his own views on his health (stable genius, most healthy person ever etc.) We can mention that, but it is less "third-party" and less reliable than the assessments of independent experts.
 * A person can choose to consult any doctor, including doctors who are his friends, who agree with him politically or otherwise, who hold fringe views, who are mediocre/obscure/not very reputable and so on. When a person solicits an opinion from a doctor to be used in a political argument (that he is a "stable genius") that doctor isn't particularly independent. Often doctors say pretty much what the patient wants them to say, within reasonable limits, as was in fact the case when Trump dictated a letter signed by his doctor during the campaign that claimed that Trump "will be the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency" I wonder if Trump's doctor had examined all the previous presidents, since he makes a direct claim about their (allegedly bad) health (claiming that Obama in his 40s was less healthy than a septuagenarian who never exercises and who is transported in a golf cart), or does this bogus requirement only apply when someone says something about Trump?
 * The assessments by independent experts, e.g. in books such as The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump, are of higher quality than letters dictated by Trump to his personal doctors because, unlike his personal doctors, who can be just anybody with no scholarly reputations, the independent experts must compete in the marketplace of ideas based on their scholarly reputations and the quality of their arguments. When they get all this coverage in high quality RS such as NYT, NPR, BBC, The Guardian etc., it's because RS consider their assessments to be relevant and serious.
 * This text proposal is a very reasonable compromise that accomodates all the different views on this topic. --Tataral (talk) 04:35, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Tataral is correct. There is no plausible "noncompliant with NPOV" argument to be considered.- MrX 🖋 10:58, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yup. Part of the problem here is the absence of data. Since Trump has only allowed sycophants to examine him, we must partly rely on armchair diagnoses to get a more complete picture. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:12, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The only reasonable conclusion from an argument in favor of a medical diagnosis from a doctor that has never examined the subject over one that has is personal biases. There is another explanation to Tataral's scenario that wasn't consider: the media published these experts because the experts expressed an opinion that supported their narrative.  The experts published their opinion because it helps their career to get noticed and they are unlikely to receive criticism to a very popular opinion.  But at the end of the day, none of them have examined the subject.  I would suggest that no one here attach themselves to Tataral because here, and at the AfD, they often ignored consensus and misrepresented consensus.  They are coming here with strong biases.  We should be able to have this conversation without that.--v/r - TP 22:55, 17 June 2019 (UTC)


 * This talk page in general as well as the comment by myself that you replied to are concerned with the improvement of the article on Donald Trump. If you intend to spend your time here making comments like that one you made above you cannot expect that I, or anyone else, will dignify your comments with any further replies. --Tataral (talk) 08:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree based on the following plausible reasons:
 * Amendment to close: A small amendment per a request on my talk page: Given that many of the concerns here are about the reliability of medical information and whether "armchair diagnoses" by people who have not personally examined Trump are actually reliable, as well as more general gossip/unencyclopedicity concerns, the editors who carry out the merger should probably consider a very selective merge that only includes the good material supported by top-notch sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 3:35 am, 14 June 2019, last Friday (2 days ago) (UTC−5) (reply)
 * BLPN discussion. Atsme Talk 📧 15:44, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I will be adding his height to this paragraph. It was removed.  starship .paint  (talk) 02:56, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to say I Support MelanieN’s modified proposal. Per WP:PUBLICFIGURE.  starship .paint  (talk) 00:46, 19 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Further edits - from the paragraph on Bornstein, the second line mentioning appendectomy and mentioning not mentioned bone spurs seems useless and disrupts the connection between line1 letter written and line3 letter said dictated. Better if it were removed.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:50, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Para 5 excluded by Current Consensus
Mental health Rumors, speculations and slurs (apparently from deleted/discredited Health article) in proposal above already got fast-track inserted, ignoring User:Atsme and User:MONGO and not waiting.

I’ve deleted that as contrary to the standing consensus#21. I believe this topic - and specifically the ‘Dangerous case’ book and psych petition - were RFCed and categorically any such were excluded from RFC. You can have a separate article on the book, but not in this BLP.

If it reappears, I believe the consensus section guides removal and grants exception to 1RR so anyone can remove it repeatedly if need be - so please do not reinsert.

p.s Seems to me the Health article created in 2018 AFTER the 2017 consensus was a way to circumvent the BLP policy, WEIGHT and OFFTOPIC concerns, and this consensus #21. Just my opinion, but that seems also what happened for Consensus #22 - in 2018 the Veracity article is created. That a small snippet was taken elsewhere and got greatly expanded seems a POVFORK, verging on ATTACK page. May need another RFC on the fork/unfork proprieties there....

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:33, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

... the current consensus was established in August 2017. Has anything changed since then?  starship .paint  (talk) 06:25, 17 June 2019 (UTC)


 * July 2017 (background) American Psychoanalytic Association does not prohibit members from commenting on the mental health of public figures, but the American Psychiatric Association does
 * September 2017 - "We will have no choice but to destroy North Korea"
 * January 2018 - "I too have a Nuclear Button, but it is a much bigger & more powerful one than his, and my Button works!"
 * January 2018 - "throughout my life, my two greatest assets have been mental stability and being, like, really smart ... a very stable genius" (he establishes the allegations noteworthiness by denying them)
 * March 2018 - "He doesn’t know me, but he would go down fast and hard, crying all the way. Don’t threaten people Joe!"
 * July 2018 - "NEVER, EVER THREATEN THE UNITED STATES AGAIN OR YOU WILL SUFFER CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE."
 * September 2018 - UN press conference
 * February 2019 speech -  the old man at the bar sounding off about the world’s ills ... wild detours ... random segues ... Trump sniffed frequently, and at times his speech sounded slurred
 * March 2019 - 67 lines from 2-hour CPAC speech
 * May 2019 - "If Iran wants to fight, that will be the official end of Iran."

Feel free to provide more information.  starship .paint  (talk) 06:25, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

The only consensus regarding any material on this topic is the consensus in this section in favour of the text proposal by MelanieN, following the earlier decision to merge the most central parts of Health of Donald Trump into this article. As there is consensus for the text proposal it should be restored. The health article is neither "deleted" nor "discredited". --Tataral (talk) 08:24, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree, the material should be restored per WP:CONSENSUS. All we have are a couple of editors ignoring a multitude of sources and substituting their own colorful opinions (armchair, slurs, gossip, speculation). As I read the above discussions, substantially more editors favor inclusion of the material than not, so good luck with that 1RR exception.- MrX 🖋 11:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * We could have another Rfc.--MONGO (talk) 11:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Tataral That is false. As I clearly stated, the paragraph is directly contrary to Talk:Donald Trump #21. The allegations, even the publications, were discussed and dismissed and felt recordable as categorically blocked in 2017. That a spawn article was done in 2018 which evades that seems the main event to me.
 * NOTTABLOID And while trying awfully hard to AGF, to the point this seems a willful avoidance of limits of POVFORK, either awareness that this is a BLP with higher standards and the potential to back flow material from less creditable articles into here. WP isn’t supposed to be a Tabloid, especially so in BLP articles.  We may need a new RFC to explicitly make a caution about this.
 * NOTSLIMY Finally It’s OK to think leadership is a hyperbolic rambling speaker, normal for New Yorkers and real estate; or to think benign narcissist, maybe sort of normal among billionaires; or to think he and his ideas are a bit of a nutter to the extent common among Grumpy Old Guys. But it’s NOT ok to phrase that as a matter of medical concern.  And to gather a litany of one-sided rumors and insinuations just won’t do.  It needs discussion on principles not exhaustively listing each Google hit on one side. (Yes Starship, looking at you.).  It’s by far more disreputable or nuttier to be asserting ‘mentally ill’, along with ‘collusion’, ‘like Hitler’, etcetera as a wording than any of the Trump behaviours being alluded to here.  Please tune to BBC and the London Times a bit more and less wild speculation.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 12:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)


 * 1) Even if there had been any such previous consensus from years ago, that wouldn't mean that a new consensus couldn't evolve. We now have such a new consensus that includes a specific formal decision that (the key parts of) Health of Donald Trump is to be merged into this article (the only way to appeal that is via Deletion review), and in the implementation of that decision we have consensus for the text proposal by MelanieN that was implemented by MrX based on this discussion.
 * 2) Health of Donald Trump, a quality article created by one of Wikipedia's most experienced editors that has been an established part of the Donald Trump article suite for a year, is not deleted and certainly not "discredited". Rather, the merge decision means that it remains an "article in good standing" and that editors believe the material should be covered here in some form. It is now part of this article, in other words. The article is still live and will remain so until the merge process has been completed, i.e. when we have agreed on a text that has been included in the Donald Trump article.
 * 3) I opposed adding the false claim (itself worthy of being tagged as Template:Globalize/US) about a non-existent consensus to that list years ago, not only because there never was any previous consensus either for or against, but also because I anticipated that it would be abused as some sort of "weapon" against the forming of any future consensus (quite contrary to policy) regarding this issue. Your attempt to argue that the recent decision and discussion of this issue is irrelevant because of that list just proved that I was right. At the time everyone, including me, agreed that there was no consensus for including such material at that time and that the inclusion of such material would require future discussion and consensus (which has now happened), but no consensus for is not the same as a consensus against and cannot be used as an argument years later to shut down new decisions and discussions. Ostensibly, that was never the point of the list either. --Tataral (talk) 13:02, 17 June 2019 (UTC)


 * User:Tataral Well, that ceased falsely stating there is no consensus #21, but there is no “if there had been any such”.  Please simply deal with it is obvious fact right there, plainly posted as guidance on this article and in TALK archives.   So the discussion re importing may have been on a false and incomplete basis.  Para 1 and 2 are fine, para 3 and 4 seem unnecessary verbosity meh, but para 5 was explicitly no-no and also seems contrary to current thread “Personality of Donald Trump”.  Feel free to follow procedures and make an explicit case or RFC to change that if you wish and see what the outcome is in a week or two.   Meanwhile please observe the stated items.   Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:52, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

My thought: by consensus at the AFD page for Health of Donald Trump, we are supposed to merge that article into this. That article contains three short paragraphs about physical health. We pretty much reproduce those paragraphs in their entirety. It also contains ten paragraphs about his mental health. One of the complaints about the Health of DT article was that it overemphasized mental illness allegations, even including wisecracks from political opponents. We have respected that complaint by reproducing almost none of that material - just a one-paragraph summary of what was said by professionals in the field. IMO this proposal is responsive to both the requirement to include something on the subject (per the AfD), and the insistence that anything we say needs to be very carefully sourced and as neutral as we can make it. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:13, 18 June 2019 (UTC)


 * So? The User:Jo-Jo Eumerus conclusion is to discuss here a “very selective merger” (noting concerns of BLP, copyvio, MEDRS, etc), with a final caution about “armchair diagnosis”.  Jumping to insert the very  material cautioned against with only brief local mention was not fully following that guidance.  It was taking merge as if a license to insert the very thing cautioned against there and previously banned here which seems partly why that POVfork was later grown.  At any rate, AfD discussion there is not a consensus here, it’s a directive to seek consensus here.  I noted that local consensus #21 specifically excludes opinionating on mental health by people who have not examined him, and gives exemption from 1RR to delete it repeatedly, and simply executed the standing guidance.  Excluding para 5 respects both article discussions to the maximum possible without contradictions.
 * I note that edits 1 thru 4 also did not get much discussion, so remain open to revert, but that seems not already explicitly excluded and subject to 1RR Limits. Jumping to replace all prior material here seemed a bit rushed or presumptive and not the intent of JoJo.  Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 11:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Stop trying to relitigate the AfD. I agree with Jo-Jo's closure and his additional statement. What we are proposing here actually is a "very selective merger" (reducing 10 paragraphs to one, can't get any more selective than that). If we are not able to use the opinions of medical professionals who have not examined him, then there is nothing to merge, because none have. And if that's the case, instead of "merge", the result of that AfD should have been "delete" or "redirect", because that would leave nothing to merge. All the physical health stuff is already in this article - mostly word-for-word - so what are we merging? I take the "merge" result of the AfD at face value; merge that the main points of the merged article should be reflected in the target article. That has to mean including at least some mention of mental health, which formed the bulk of the Health article and the only original material in it. Look, I used to be part of the consensus here not to say anything on the subject. I no longer am. To me that consensus has been overridden by 1) the long unchallenged existence of an article that went into the subject in depth, and 2) the AfD consensus to merge that article into this one. If they had meant for nothing about mental health to be merged, they would have said "redirect". -- MelanieN (talk) 16:58, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree with this. The "merge" outcome effectively requires this paragraph, or a version very similar, be included. Arguments against its inclusion should've been made during the AfD. This has already been decided. The material should be added to the article immediately, or we might as well just pretend the AfD process is meaningless. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * User:MelanieN Respectfully, it is you who are not respecting the AfD nor respecting existing consensus in this article.  The AfD decided a separate article was not merited.  The armchair diagnosis and reportage of slurs was deprecated in that AfD.  That little or perhaps nothing of that should arrive here seems the expectation, and the only specific is to go to discussion.  No, “can’t get any more selective” obviously is disproven .... obviously one could get more selective than the entire replacement by 5 new paras, by simply cutting the one which is what happened and the topic in this sub thread.   The armchair diagnosis is addressed by existing consensus #21 and there was no examination of that in AfD, nor detailed look that BLP has a higher standard, nor is any policy guidance I know of that says AfD somewhere else overrides local consensus.  Respecting both consensus, cheers  Markbassett (talk) 03:18, 19 June 2019 (UTC)


 * User:MelanieN The edits here seemed in ignorance of consensus#21, then presumed a separate article Afd meant the consensus was altered to include one para as otherwise not much would merge to an unspecified content #36, although specifics like that were not discussed. That does not seem to satisfy the definition of consensus in WP:CONSENSUS.  So... I think I’ll have to start a thread to elevate this back to attention.  Ultimately, I think an explicit conversation in the article outweighs interpretations of a discussion in some article.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:14, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Exercise
There should be a sentence about exercise, which is a key part of lifestyle, even more key since he is obese and was overweight. Possibly something like: Trump plays golf, but reportedly views exercise as a waste of finite energy. but there's actually more in the sources. I present a wide variety of different content below, but I'm sure I can find multiple sources for the same content (which you guys wouldn't want, as you want to trim the article)  starship .paint  (talk) 00:38, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * WaPo The Washington Post’s 2016 biography of the president, which noted that Trump mostly gave up athletics after college because he “believed the human body was like a battery, with a finite amount of energy, which exercise only depleted.”
 * CNN 2019 "Nearly a dozen White House officials and sources close to Trump said they don't believe he's set foot in the fitness room in the White House residence, maintaining his view that exercise would be a waste of the energy he has always touted as one of his best attributes."
 * NYT 2015 Trump said he was not following any special diet or exercise regimen for the campaign. "All my friends who work out all the time, they’re going for knee replacements, hip replacements — they’re a disaster" he said. He exerts himself fully by standing in front of an audience for an hour, as he just did. "That’s exercise."
 * ABC 2018 White House Doctor Ronny Jackson: "Some people exercise, some people don’t. Some people just haven’t done that as part of their routine. And I would say that’s the category he falls in right now" and same source: But there’s one form of physical activity with which Trump is closely associated: golf.
 * Reuters 2018 - Trump: "I get exercise. I mean I walk, I this, I that ... I run over to a building next door. I get more exercise than people think ... A lot of people go to the gym and they’ll work out for two hours and all. I’ve seen people ... then they get their new knees when they’re 55 years old and they get their new hips and they do all those things. I don’t have those problems" He gets exercise by playing golf, he said, even though he typically rides around the course in a golf cart. Walking would leave him on the course longer than he prefers, he said. "I don’t want to spend the time."  starship .paint  (talk) 00:27, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Interesting that that wasn't mentioned in the article we are merging. Yet another way in which it was a lousy article. I suggest it could go in the same paragraph where people point out that his diet, weight, and lifestyle are suboptimal. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:48, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Here's some options I'm proposing:  starship .paint  (talk) 13:53, 15 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Option A: Trump plays golf, but reportedly views exercise as a waste of finite energy.
 * Option B: Although Trump plays golf, White House Doctor Ronny Jackson said in 2018 that Trump does not have a exercise routine. Trump has said that people who regularly exercise would require orthopedic surgery at his age.
 * Option C: White House Doctor Ronny Jackson said in 2018 that Trump does not have a exercise routine. Trump does play golf, and to save time, favors using a golf cart over walking around the course.
 * Option D: Trump does not exercise, viewing it as a waste of energy.
 * Option E: Trump plays golf but otherwise does not exercise, viewing it as a waste of energy.
 * Option F: Trump plays golf and favors using a golf cart over walking around the course. He otherwise does not exercise, viewing it as a waste of energy.

I think we should keep it brief but informative. How about a combination of A and B: "Trump plays golf but otherwise does not exercise, viewing it as a waste of energy." -- MelanieN (talk) 14:45, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I kind of favor C D or E. Trump's view about orthopedic surgery or "finite energy" are trivial and meaningless. Golf is not really exercise if your ride around in a golf cart, so I wouldn't object leaving it off entirely.- MrX 🖋 17:16, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I've added and support "Option D" on the basis that playing golf with a golf cart isn't exercise, and thus can be completely excluded. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:12, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, at this rate, there will be an RfC to rank options (if something isn't supported here, we can leave it out as an option). Added MelanieN's sentence as option E, added a slightly expanded version Option F which I prefer.  starship .paint  (talk) 02:43, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

- I found a WaPo source quoting Trump's tweet that golf is his primary form of exercise. It also says Trump is renowned for his use of a golf cart — to the point that he has actually angered some other golfers by driving his cart onto the green at his own clubs. Shall we just go with: According to Trump, his "primary form of exercise" is golf; he is known for travelling in a golf cart between holes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starship.paint (talk • contribs)
 * I still favor option D, with brevity being my primary goal here. Why even mention the golf thing if he isn't actually exercising? (Unless you include "exercising" his right to sink millions of taxpayer dollars into his own golf courses.) -- Scjessey (talk) 11:14, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Ugh means that my ping didn't go though. Well swinging a club is kind of exercise, just extremely little.  starship  .paint  (talk) 11:33, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It's still D, E, and possibly A in that order, for me. We should keep it brief and objective, rather than writing about Trump's reflections on his own lack of exercise. - MrX 🖋 11:46, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I also prefer D, followed by E, followed by A. No need for a lot of detail about how he plays golf. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:38, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Disease or disorder?
I concur with this edit at the Health article from which this material came. The source we're citing doesn't appear to support the words "psychiatric diseases". Is it too late to propose this tweak to what MrX added to the article today? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  17:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "Disorder" is the correct terminology. Surely this is a no-brainer? (Vague pun intended.) -- Scjessey (talk) 17:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no objection.- MrX 🖋 18:08, 18 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Mmm. That edit comment fails WP:V - just follow the cite.   An editors personal opinions about whether the term is outdated does not count as a basis.  The wording in question seems to come from the Washington Post line:
 * “The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump” features more than two dozen essays breaking down the president’s perceived traits, which the contributors find consistent with symptoms of narcissistic personality disorder, sociopathy and other maladies.
 * The later part of the Post article says they're doing something APA says is unethical, that authors say he's like Hitler and with needless vulgarity that absolute tyranny is Trump's wet dream is not looking like the source for this line.
 * Both the WP line "They defined Trump's behavior in terms of psychiatric diseases, such as narcissistic personality disorder." and using "mental disorder" seem off.  It was not saying 'defining' of behaviour nor 'in terms of' nor a single category of either type.   Wording is more directly "They find his perceived traits consistent with symptoms of narcissistic personality disorder, sociopathy and other maladies."  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:15, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Which version?
MrX, I see that you added your original version of the last paragraph to the article. In your edit summary you said ''Adding merged content from Health of Donald Trump per consensus at talk: Donald Trump#Health and lifestyle proposal (Support: MrX, Tataral, Scjessey, bd2412, MelanieN, TParis, JFG; Oppose: MONGO, Atsme) Substantially more participation in this discussion than in both previous discussions documented in consensus #21. This it the new consensus, unless MelanieN's modifications to paragraph 5 get a little more support.'' Actually I thought we already had consensus for my modified version. After I posted it there were approving comments from you yourself as well as JFG, TParis, Tataral, Scjessey - that’s five, plus me - as well as opposition from Markbassett and Atsme. The later version has more and more current sources, and it does not contain the sentence about “psychiatric diseases” that was objected to, and it does contain Trump’s rebuttal. Virtually everyone, with the except of bd2412, that had commented on the original version later said they liked the modified version. So I’m not sure how you reached the conclusion that the original version, rather than the modified version, had consensus. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree with MelanieN on this. — JFG talk 22:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, that make's sense. I got lost in the subsequent discussion following your proposal, so I wasn't certain about the consensus. Someone should go ahead and add your version and update the list of consensuses.- MrX 🖋 23:16, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

What is our current consensus?

 * The consensus list entry is very general and I don't think it needs updating. But it would be useful for the future to clarify exactly what the new consensus language is, somewhere in this discussion. I could do a 99%-uninvolved close if desired, provided I don't have to analyze and summarize arguments on this one. Just pointing to the consensus language. &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  23:20, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * My reading of the whole discussion was that there was consensus for MelanieN's version, and that those who had an opinion at all about her proposed changes had weighed in the section about the changes. --Tataral (talk) 03:33, 19 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Not really, it’s been Helter Skelter. Starship got a jump on the AfD merge with retitling and edits 10 June, MrX did a talk 14 June to edit 15 June, and then a MelanieN revision talk late 14 June to edit circa 16 June and numerous tweaks since by several editors - last being a fair sized one by MelanieN just a bit ago, whups no Mandruss just got in there...  There really wasn’t a lot of prior open discussion to form a consensus about what to include or not just jumps into edits hence there’s been jumps into after-edits and still discussing content and wording.   Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:29, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, we need to remove the list item. If nothing else, it has been superseded by the current consensus in this section, that is concerned with the implementation of the AfD result. The fact that Markbassett is trying to use it to "relitigate the AfD" (as MelanieN noted) is a good illustration of why it needs to go, because it directly contradicts content that there is consensus to include. What we do have consensus for is to keep material on this issue fairly short and based on only the best sources, which is also in line with the AfD decision. I wouldn't oppose a new list item to that effect. --Tataral (talk) 09:29, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yesterday, #21 was marked superseded and #36 was added. Sorry, I assumed all interested parties would notice the changes, an unwise assumption considering list changes don't appear in this page's history (the list is transcluded). &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  11:39, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Our new “current consensus #36” says Include one paragraph merged from Health of Donald Trump describing views about Trump's psychology expressed by public figures, media sources, and mental health professionals who have not examined him. I have a slight disagreement with that wording. I agree with keeping it to one paragraph. But I would absolutely oppose reporting any views expressed by “public figures” (the Health article actually quoted Jeb Bush, as if he was some kind of authority on Bush’s mental health rather than a political rival; would we quote Donald Trump to prove that Hillary Clinton is a criminal?). And I would mostly oppose comments from individual commenters - with a possible exception for a column by a mental health professional, but it’s better the way we have it where we quote the combined analyses of multiple professionals. I think it should say Include one paragraph merged from Health of Donald Trump describing views about Trump's psychology expressed by mental health professionals, even if they have not personally examined him. What do others think? -- MelanieN (talk) 17:17, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think that would be accurate because the paragraph begins "Numerous public figures, media sources, and mental health professionals have speculated that Trump may have mental health challenges." The version I wrote acknowledges that public figures and media sources have also speculated about Trump's mental health.- MrX 🖋 17:40, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, we do report that they speculate about it. I just don't want our consensus to suggest that we are going to quote any of their speculation - I think we should make it clear that we will not be "describing views about Trump's psychology expressed by" public figures and media sources. Obviously I'm open to other opinions, if people think that is too fine a distinction to make. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:18, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that we shouldn't quote specific public figures in that section, because there are better qualified, more relevant and more independent sources, but we can mention briefly that the issue has been the subject of much commentary (like we currently do) without going into further detail about the opinions of individual public figures. I also agree that we should focus on analyses of multiple professionals when possible; the book The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump, that is a joint project of 27 reputable experts, is a good example of that. --Tataral (talk) 18:31, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I assumed that, since the added language is too much to include in the list entry (or is it?), we would agree on the precise language in this discussion and further discussion and agreement would be required to change that paragraph in any way. Is that unworkable? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:47, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I always assumed that any future change to the wording of this highly sensitive and much debated paragraph agreed to here would require future discussion and consensus anyway. Perhaps we can just link to the specific wording (i.e. the version proposed by MelanieN)? --Tataral (talk) 20:10, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I alluded to this yesterday, here. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:17, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't favor locking in a specific wording. We need to be able to make at least minor corrections. And things can change, new issues can arise. And after all, most of the people who approved of the revised version also previously approved of the original version, so both can be said to have met consensus. I think we should state the consensus on the TYPE of thing we can say in this paragraph. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:45, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I sincerely wish you good luck and godspeed in that endeavor. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:57, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I made a proposal above. I'll repeat it: Include one paragraph merged from Health of Donald Trump describing views about Trump's psychology expressed by mental health professionals, even if they have not personally examined him. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:16, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 👍 That works for me. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:22, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Whoa, that was easy! Are your wishes for good luck and godspeed always this successful? 0;-D -- MelanieN (talk) 21:56, 19 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I doubt that simply assuming superseded is valid, or interpreting AFD in the way done here, as it does not form a consensus by WP:CONSENSUS talking of the item in question. The prior Afd and edit were acting in ignorance of consensus #21, or at least never mentioned it.  The only coming close was remarks against armchair diagnosis, which seems contrary to the course now being taken.  Perhaps a new thread on this is needed to have the topic detailed out, to cleanly do procedural and content discussion as to what language of consensus should be - including whether the consensus #21 should have stayed untouched.  At the very least, it really should be phrasing somebody statement of guidance concepts, not a vague directive ‘insert one para’. Markbassett (talk) 07:54, 23 June 2019 (UTC)


 * OK, not seeing any movement for a consensus discussion, or re wording for guidance, I think it's time to start a thread about it and that seems a cleaner procedural approach anyway as this thread is a bit overlong and tangled - the edits began before AfD was done, and first the edits were done then the rules were changed to allow it seems a bit in need of reconsideration.   Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:43, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Merged
OK, I added the second version and completed the merge. We could still have a discussion about how the new consensus should read. I'd like it to me a little more limited as to what kind of information is allowed. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:40, 19 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Since we are including contentious speculation about Trump's mental health by health professionals who have violated their own professional ethics, we should at least state the circumstances of their armchair diagnosis in the paragraph we're adding. The AfD closer clarified: A small amendment per a request on my talk page: Given that many of the concerns here are about the reliability of medical information and whether "armchair diagnoses" by people who have not personally examined Trump are actually reliable, as well as more general gossip/unencyclopedicity concerns, the editors who carry out the merger should probably consider a very selective merge that only includes the good material supported by top-notch sources. I don't see where local consensus was reached to include what we have now. I believe we should stick closer to the consensus reached by the wider community. Another consideration is what was said when I first took the issue to BLPN, the statement by when he opened the AfD, and the ongoing discussion at VP (policy). There is also the suggestion by  regarding a suggestion by  as follows: With as broad a body of reporting as there has been, we shouldn't proceed as if the claims don't exist, but I am amenable to the compromise proposal TParis has made above to convert this into an article specifically on the phenomenon of a substantial number of mental health professionals making claims about a specific patient that they have not examined, and the response of the APA and other governing bodies to that practice. The way the paragraph reads now makes the armchair opinions appear to be legitimate diagnoses, and that needs to be changed. For example, Trump's critics", media pundits, and several mental health professionals, who never examined Trump, gave their opinions in violation of the Goldwater Rule, suggesting disorders such as narcissism,[99] delusional disorder,[100][101] or early dementia.[102][103] . That's all the weight it needs, anything more is UNDUE. Atsme  Talk 📧 19:38, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That wording makes it sounds like the critics and media pundits were in violation of the Goldwater Rule, which only applies to mental health professionals. If we are going to bring up the rule, it should be specified that the mental health professionals who made the statements have never personally examined Trump, and are in violation of the Goldwater Rule. Some of those who are merely critics (i.e. not mental health professionals) who have commented on Trump's mental health are people who have met him in person. bd2412  T 19:46, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree with bd2412 that the wording there needs more clarification. Not necessarily even more words, but definitely at least a clearer structure. Other than that, I'm just not totally sure why we're really considering the opinions of nondescript "critics and media pundits". I struggle to imagine where we would take such opinions seriously on any other medical topic.  G M G  talk  20:04, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I would have no problem removing reference to anyone who is not a medical mental health professional. The opinions of others is relevant to the public perception of Trump, but not relevant to his actual health. bd2412  T 20:06, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Psychologists are not medical professionals, but are qualified experts on this topic nevertheless. The book The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump is authored by "psychiatrists [i.e. medical professionals], psychologists, and other mental health professionals." --Tataral (talk) 20:16, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Corrected. bd2412  T 20:29, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I think we are pretty much in agreement that we do not want to actually cite opinions from anyone who is not a mental health professional, although we do mention in the opening sentence that those other groups have also made comments. As for the "violation of the Goldwater rule," we could possibly handle that by adding a footnote, along these lines: Some of these mental health professionals belong to organizations that have a Goldwater rule. which says their members should not render an opinion about the status of a person they have not examined. Spokespeople for authors of the public statements responded that they are also bound by the principle of Duty to warn when someone appears to be dangerous. Do people think something like this would be necessary or helpful? (I'm not recommending it myself one way or the other, just raising a possibility.) -- MelanieN (talk) 21:06, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree in principle. I think footnotes are a good solution when we want to be entirely accurate but want to avoid getting too deep in the weeds for general consumption. I think they should be used more. Here's my copy edit: Some of these mental health professionals belong to organizations that endorse the Goldwater rule, which says their members should not render an opinion about the mental health of a person they have not examined. Authors of the public statements responded that they are also bound by the principle of duty to warn when someone appears to be dangerous. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:45, 19 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that's an improvement. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:58, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * And it would need a citation or two, for V. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:13, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- MelanieN (talk) 22:44, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:52, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Just a note for and : the Goldwater Rule isn't mandatory for all mental health professionals. For example, the American Psychoanalytic Association says its members don't have to follow the Goldwater Rule.  starship .paint  (talk) 03:12, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Depending of course on how broadly you want to use the term "mental health professional".  G M G  talk  14:29, 20 June 2019 (UTC)


 * mmm. Not many areas of the field Mental health professional could be included per ethical bans, so not sure that the phrase means much if anything WP:MEDHRS. In WP:MEDHRS terms, would seem best fit by those licensed by the state in a relevant profession.   The Washington Post cite re’Dangerous’ book mentions this is unethical by the Goldwater rule of the American Psychiatric Association, as does the Forbes cite re the Change.org online petition.  Although the American Psychoanalytic Association ‘prefers’ that it’s members not offer opinions on someone they have not examined, it does not have a Goldwater rule.   The American Medical Association does have an ethical rule against it, which would bear bar neurological practitioners.  I think the American Psychological Association are not mentioned as having a rule - but that includes educators, consultants, students, and social workers not qualified as health professionals.   Cheers Markbassett (talk) 08:32, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * - source for your claim on American Medical Association?  starship .paint  (talk) 08:41, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Starship.paint The Goldwater rule mentions it, cite is here, the Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs (CEJA) Report 2-I-17 Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:01, 25 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The Goldwater "rule" (which isn't really a "rule") is just a recommendation of what is essentially a private association that consists of psychiatrists in the US. We shouldn't forget that numerous experts from other countries have voiced an opinion regarding this issue too. Why should they care about any Goldwater rule that doesn't apply to them? The debate is global. Europeans tend to view things like this in the US quite sceptically. The entire US legal system is mostly viewed as deeply flawed and politicized by Europeans too – much like we view the Chinese legal system, in fact. The starting point of any discussion cannot be that the entire world recognises any such rule just because a group of Americans have proclaimed its existence. --Tataral (talk) 11:35, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

RfC: oldest and wealthiest
Should the lead section mention that Trump is the "oldest and wealthiest" president? — JFG talk 15:03, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

The current, longstanding phrase in paragraph 2 of the lead includes:

I would suggest replacing this with:

In recent informal discussions, some editors have said those qualifiers are unimportant statistics best left to specialized articles such as List of presidents of the United States by age and List of Presidents of the United States by net worth instead of the lead section of Trump's BLP. It was also argued that "oldest" is ageist and "wealthiest" is vulgar, and that it all was "irrelevant trivia". In support of the inclusion, it was argued that those facts were well-covered during Trump's campaign, and that similar statistics appear in other presidents' biographies. This RfC aims to resolve the disagreement. — JFG talk 15:03, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Survey: oldest and wealthiest
''Please express your preference with Keep to preserve the status quo or with Delete to remove the "oldest and wealthiest" qualifiers. A brief rationale is welcome here. Longer arguments should go to the section.''


 * Delete - I remember "oldest" and "wealthiest" were talking points during the election, but I honestly don't think they are biographically significant. Nor are they defining characteristics of his presidency. This is exactly the kind of trimming I would like to see more of in this article. Less is always more. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:21, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete – While Trump's lack of military or government experience is relevant to his presidency, and apparently unprecedented in the USA, his age and his wealth are mere trivia. Reagan was old too, and Washington was filthy rich for his day. — JFG talk 17:19, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete not at all defining characteristics and not lead-worthy, especially compared to his actions in office, though including in article body wouldn't be so bad. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:41, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep to preserve the status quo, no real reason to mess with a long-standing 2 year norm and what little stability this article has. Also, oldest and wealthiest seem to follow precedents of identifying characteristics in past presidents such as age remarks for Ronald Reagan or youth and religion of John F. Kennedy.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:00, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - this is interesting information. He is a lot older than his immediate predecessors (though only slightly older than Reagan was as President). He also seems to be a lot wealthier than other President, according to the linked table. This is worth noting.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:04, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete on second thoughts. These are simply relative measures that will be out of date sooner or later. He is not likely to be the oldest President for long, given the increases in longevity. Wealth is hard to measure over time, and this is not particularly notable.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:06, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - There is a long tradition to identify presidents according to records they hold in regards to their presidency. Ronald Reagan was widely reported to be the oldest back then, James Buchanan as the only bachelor to hold the office, John F. Kennedy as being the youngest to be elected and the only Catholic to be president, James Garfield as the last to be born in a log cabin etc. This sort of trivia exists for most presidents. One argument for deletion is that this information is well known to most readers because they refer to the current president, whose wealth and age are widely discussed in the media, but removing it now for being banal only to add it a few years later, when the information won't seem as obvious sounds unnecessary to me. PraiseVivec (talk) 16:05, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per JFG. Gandydancer (talk) 17:08, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - trivia. Atsme Talk 📧 18:30, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article Inauguration of Donald Trump conspicuously doesn't mention it, but that is not a reason to remove it here, because Presidency of Donald Trump mentions it (it is a WP:Summary style article). If anything, the Inauguration article should be changed to mention it in its lead. I believe that it should be kept here when similar leads, most notably that of Ronald Reagan, include such information. w umbolo   ^^^  21:12, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - Although Reagan was much more well known for being the oldest president than Trump was, it still keeps things simple for the reader. The statements are neither trivial, nor do they add unnecessary fluff to the article that isn't notable or noteworthy.— Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 02:43, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Neither of these items has received nearly as much attention in the reliable sources as the rest of the content in the lead section. I understand these superlatives have historical significance, but I highly doubt Trump will be known in 5, 10, 50 years for being the wealthiest or oldest president. He will likely be known for bringing his business background to the White House, but that's something substantially different. To be clear, however, I fully support having this material in the body of our article. R2 (bleep) 19:37, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - Wealth qualifier is unconfirmed. No reliable source. Gerntrash (talk) 03:01, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Oldest but delete wealthiest His age is undeniable, his wealth is in dispute. Coretheapple (talk) 18:38, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete I think those terms shouldn't stay in the paragraph, because belongs to the Peacock terms and afect to the neutral point of view.--AnbyG (talk) 08:43, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep oldest. Delete wealthiest. Ronald Reagan talks about oldest; seems like a fine precedent. Looking at the source for "wealthiest", it's nowhere near strong enough for the lead of an article about a President. The source's link for $525 million for Washington goes nowhere. And I'm skeptical of anyone's methodology for comparing wealth levels 240 years apart.Adoring nanny (talk) 12:03, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep oldest, delete wealthiest per . —Compassionate727 (T·C) 19:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion: oldest and wealthiest
- some editors have opined that "oldest" is ageist and "wealthiest" is vulgar - Not to put too fine a point on it, but I don't see more than one editor saying either. I'd ask that you edit that for accuracy. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  15:20, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You are right, and in fairness only one editor highlighted the comparison with Reagan, Kennedy and Roosevelt's biographies. The point is to show that those were arguments advanced in the discussion. I'll edit to avoid referring to a particular editor or group thereof. — JFG talk 15:27, 25 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment I think oldest should be included because it was a common description for WH Harrison and Reagan. The "prior military or government service" is clumsy. All previous presidents had held either elected office as a congressman, senator or governor, or had served in the Cabinet or were generals. If Trump had worked as an election official, or had been in the National Guard, his lack of experience would still be relevant. Also, not sure if we was the wealthiest, particularly if inflation is taken into account. We don't even know if he has a positive net worth. TFD (talk) 20:59, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I think "prior military or government service" was used in the media at the time. Does "government service" have a special meaning for Americans? Because I would have thought "military service" was "government service", and "government service" could include working as a clerk in the sanitation department.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:31, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I vaguely recall some discussion about this. Military service may be government service in some sense, but that doesn't mean Americans would interpret the term that way. We would normally think of people working in city halls, state capitals, and Washington, not in military bases and foreign countries. The military take direction from their government but serve their country, and they are not the same thing. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  07:47, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I also vaguely recall a discussion but I think it was more about whether what elected officials do should be called "service." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:37, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we could lift this ambiguity by replacing "service" with "experience". The target articles is called List of Presidents of the United States by previous experience. — JFG talk 19:51, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I rephrased the sentence to make it adhere more closely to the sources. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:37, 29 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I think, in general, statements about the "oldest" should be avoided. Given the steady increase in human longevity, we should expect US Presidents to be increasingly older and to live longer (like Jimmy Carter). This is not notable and not worth noting. However, in Trump's case he is significantly older than Obama etc. There has been speculation that this could be a factor in his Presidency, and he could be or become medically unfit.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:40, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There'll be older presidents sure, but if we're just going to have a list of presidents by age anyway, we might as well make mention of it in the current president's article. It's more about simplicity than anything in my opinion. It's not like the US presidents articles are filled with tons of trivia as is.— Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 02:47, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Is there a way to prevent auto-archive of this section?  starship .paint  (talk) 05:03, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. See . &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  06:18, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Now with easier-to-use pin section. — JFG talk 08:45, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Restoring material
I made this edit - the edit summary explains why: (→‎Sexual misconduct allegations: a bit of ce for flow, and state what the sources support after verifying for accuracy what Trump actually said on the tape (WP is neither censored nor obligated to repeat misstatements or misrepresentations by cited sources)). Unfortunately, it was not long after I made the edit that restored what I believe to be UNDUE since we're already quoting his most widely covered comment in MSM, and should not be cherrypicking parts to hang on a COATRACK. wrongfully reverted part of it, and restored inaccurate events, misstatements by the cited sources whereas I was citing the NYTimes. I will begin with a local request regarding the restoration of the material I added. as I believe the revert was groundless.

Please comment in the relevant sections below. Atsme Talk 📧 17:24, 24 June 2019 (UTC)  My sincere apologies to for my misreading of the edit history.  Atsme|undefined Talk 📧 20:32, 24 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Approve changes by Atsme Diff


 * Approve - quite simply, the material I added is accurate and properly presented according to the actual transcipt of the recording published by NYTimes whereas the material I removed that BullRangifer restored is inaccurate, misstated and noncompliant with NPOV and BLP.


 * Approve Revert by BullRangifer Diff


 * The whole section or a portion needs to be rewritten


 * Discussion


 * Whoa! Not so fast. I didn't revert your whole edit. I only restored something you deleted, hopefully inadvertently. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:38, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Atsme, I suggest you strike your comments above or completely close this thread. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:47, 24 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree with most of Atsme's edit except that I don't see any point in dragging in the Clintons. That part of his "apology" was not as widely reported as the rest. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:43, 24 June 2019 (UTC) Now that I see the three versions compared side-by-side, I prefer the original version; see my rationale below. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:42, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I see that that part has been simplified by R2. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:45, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You made many changes and lumped them all under a bit of ce for flow, and state what the sources support .... I would actually support some of them as improvements (and reject others as making the article worse, for example that long piece on the discussion on the bus that was inadvertently recorded. Bush responded: "Whatever you want ..." What does that add to the article except unnecessary bytes? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:59, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * When we quote a portion of a discussion, we do just that - we don't omit important statements that resulted in the response we're quoting as if it was a contiguous response when it was not. That is misleading. It was easier to add Bush's statement (which broke the contiguity of Trump's quote) in order to accurately quote Trump's response to his comment than it would have been to close the quote, add something in our words, and then finish the quote., I have no problem with eliminating the Clinton reference. My primary concern is getting the quote right. As an encyclopedia, we should not be spreading misinformation/misrepresentation of what someone actually said when we are actually able to verify for ourselves what they actually said. Better yet, when the transcript is actually published in a RS such as the NYTimes. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme Talk 📧 20:03, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Strongly disagree with your argument here. Our goal is to summarize things as the sources have, not to dig into the transcripts and try to clip them into what we feel is "getting it right" or whatever.  Your edit to the section is WP:SYNTH - most coverage did not portray the topic from the perspective that you are trying to put it in here. --Aquillion (talk) 20:29, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Atsme, please strike your comments about me. You got it all wrong, right from the start. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:16, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme Talk 📧 20:40, 24 June 2019 (UTC)


 * These changes go way beyond simple copyediting, and I have serious objections to some of them, especially the change to the key quote, which seems completely unjustified. Why did you put that he later defended as "locker room talk" at the very start of the section?  That aspect isn't a major part of the topic.  Why remove the During the recording, Trump also spoke of his efforts to seduce a married woman, saying he "moved on her very heavily"?  I also don't think that changing with many Republicans withdrawing their endorsements of his candidacy and some urging him to quit the race to the more stilted resulting in a group of GOP senators and representatives withdrawing their support for his candidacy, and some requesting that he step aside is an improvement.  The widespread media coverage of the 15 women who came forward after the tape is also important.  And the random expansion of a dig at the Clintons seems unnecessary. --Aquillion (talk) 20:29, 24 June 2019 (UTC)


 * ?Ok to close the discussion? I think the section looks good the way it is now. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme Talk 📧 20:49, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry - I was reading the wrong version - Aquillion's edit took Trump's quote out of context. You cannot break-up a quote and make it appear contiguous when he was responding to someone in between - that is misrepresentation. Bush made a comment to which Trump responded. It needs be restored to the way I had it. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme Talk 📧 21:02, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I added pink highlight to what needs to be restored. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme Talk 📧 21:10, 24 June 2019 (UTC)


 * 1. How does it change the meaning significantly to omit Bush's interjection, which was just sycophantic parroting of what Trump just said? 2. Why are you assuming that Trump was replying to it, or even heard it and paid it any attention? 3. That it was omitted can be clarified with [...]. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:15, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No, we cannot use ... unless it was something he said contiguously. When person B interrupts the person A, we close quote. Then we either quote person B, or we add a summary of what B said that lead to person's A's following statement, which we begin with an open quote, state the response, and close quote. That's how it's done. The transcript shows that Bush said something between those dots that we now have in the article that led to the next quote by Trump. It is misrepresentation to make it appear Trump was not reacting/responding to what someone else said. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme  Talk 📧 21:39, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * We can do whatever makes sense to us as editors and is not inconsistent with policy. "That's how it's done" in my experience. In the interest of concision we omit things that are superfluous. You wrote over a hundred words without answering my question, so I'll repeat it. How does it change the meaning significantly to omit Bush's interjection, which was just sycophantic parroting of what Trump just said? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:18, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * MOS:QUOTE. Yes, it changes context. We don't know if Trump would have said what he did if Bush had not commented when he did. That's up to the readers to decide. If we're going to quote what a person said in a discussion, we present it faithfully, and if anything is changed - such as breaking up the sequence of the transcript - we indicate that as well. We simply don't eliminate one person's comment and quote another's as if it were contiguous when it was not. It might be a little different process if we were editing footage for TV news, but WP is an encyclopedia so he we have to provide some of what readers can't see to keep things in context...and in this case, it's Trump responding to Bush's statement. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme Talk 📧 22:45, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * By your reasoning nobody could ever be quoted without also quoting what preceded it in the conversation, and yet we do that all the time, and that's fine unless their words were taken out of context in a significant way. You still have yet to explain that "significant way", instead repeating generalities about how things are done, so let's assume you have no explanation. You are still assuming that Trump was responding to Bush, that he wouldn't have said those words otherwise, when it's at least as likely that Trump merely skipped a beat because he was briefly interrupted. Even if you're right and he wouldn't have said those words otherwise, so what? He still said them and nobody forced him to do so, and that's not mitigated in the slightest by the interjection of three words from someone else. You are arguing something that doesn't matter. And many reliable sources agree with me, omitting Bush's three words themselves. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:13, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No, Mandruss - that is not the case at all. What you're proposing is to break up a conversation, omit the other party, and make it appear that Trump is saying this stuff to hear himself talk. He was responding in a discussion with Bush. We have open quote - close quote when another person responds. Something has to go between the close quote and the new open quote. It's that simple. Starship - why are you against including his own characterization of the discussion? Would it better if we used "described" in lieu of "defended"? <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme Talk 📧 00:40, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I don’t care about Bush’s words, you can leave it in since it’s short, you can take it out if it’s not widely covered, I’m fine either way. What I do care about is that we should not be putting Trump’s explanation about “locker room talk” before his actual quotes. I agree with in this aspect.  starship .paint  (talk) 23:59, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with your interpretation that WP:QUOTE allows (let alone encourages) the version you're suggesting. WP:QUOTE is just the manual of style; WP:OR trumps it.  And that requires us to use the version of the quote most commonly reported in reliable sources, rather than substituting it for one that you personally feel is "more accurate"; if you feel that Trump is misrepresented by that paraphrase, you should write to the articles we cite for it requesting a retraction.  Wikipedia, though, isn't the place to try and correct the record - when a quote is heavily-covered by secondary sources, our responsibility is to cover the incident the way those sources do, not to try and dig into the primary quote and cut it up the way we personally feel is most complete or accurate. Or, in other words, you keep talking about trying to be fair and accurate to Trump; that is completely irrelevant and has absolutely no bearing on our article (in fact, it's a form of WP:FALSEBALANCE.)  Our job is to be fair and accurate to the sources, ie. to summarize and reproduce them faithfully rather than to substitute our own analysis of the primary source.  If you want to edit the version of the quote used, we'll have to dig into the (extensive) secondary sourcing and see how it is covered there. --Aquillion (talk) 06:23, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * - you misread my comment sorry, I wasn’t clear. I didn’t say remove “locker room talk”. I said What I meant is: move it down. To clarify - that means from paragraph 2 to paragraph 3, alongside his apology, as part of his response.  starship .paint  (talk)}
 * Described is better than defended, but I don’t really care too much.  starship .paint  (talk) 00:56, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Ahhh...that makes sense. (I had to go back and edit out words I inadvertently repeated - one of the hazards of trying to type while making meatballs. All fixed now.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atsme (talk • contribs)


 * Seeing the three versions compared like this, I conclude that the one marked "original version" is the best. We don't need to quote the entire conversation in this article; that is for the separate article on the subject, to which we link. In this biography we should just highlight. I would still like to remove the Clinton reference; that seemed beside the point even at the time, but perhaps it is important as an illustration of how he always attacks someone even when apologizing. If consensus is to keep it I'm OK (as summarized in the original version, not the detailed accusations in the other two). -- MelanieN (talk) 15:42, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with MelanieN. The "old version" was just fine, so let's revert to it. A later update with this content (Twenty-two women have publicly accused Trump of sexual misconduct . There were allegations of rape, violence, being kissed and groped without consent, looking under women's skirts, and walking in on naked women. In 2016, he denied....) seems to be an improvement. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:15, 25 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree with the consensus that the "Old text" is the best of the three. Atsme's recent changes have includes some good ones and some bad ones, and I appreciate her shaking things up a bit. As for the disagreement between her and Aquillon, I agree with neither of them. Neither version is prohibited by community standards. I oppose Atsme's additions to the quotes based on conciseness / noteworthiness / editorial judgment, as those additions seemed unnecessarily wordy. R2 (bleep) 19:44, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

RfC: False statements
A recent discussion was archived without reaching a definite conclusion. Based on comments from various editors there, I am formally suggesting a change of the current wording, which was selected in the prior RfC about this subject, and is in my opinion unnecessarily wordy. — JFG talk 15:18, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Current version:

Proposed version:

— JFG talk 15:18, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Amended proposal :

I am putting forward this amended proposal following remarks by several editors in the first day of the RfC. — JFG talk 11:14, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Survey: false statements
''Please express your preference to Support or Oppose the proposed change, with a brief rationale. Longer arguments should go to the section.''
 * Oppose - Trump's falsehoods are a defining characteristic of his presidency. Without gazing too deeply into the crystal ball, I think the Trump presidency will forever be associated with an astonishing level of mendacity. As such, I like the way the existing text spells this out a bit more assertively. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:34, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * What happened to Less is always more? Seriously, I think a shorter sentence is more impactful in asserting the issue. — JFG talk 15:39, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Not at the expense of missing something important, obviously. Nothing is more important to Trump's biography than the thing that has defined him, and that's the fact that he likes to tell porky pies. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:05, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * In your proposed version the issue is that someone somewhere made a whole bunch of false or misleading statements while Trump was president. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:54, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I have addressed this deficiency in the amended proposal above. — JFG talk 11:18, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Still oppose, I'm afraid. The existing text remains superior. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:38, 28 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Too soon/Oppose - The passage in question is the result of an RfC that was open for more than a month a mere few months ago, focused exclusively on that little bit of content, and received over 10,000 words from over 30 editors. One of the precious few editors willing to spend their time doing uninvolved closes spent a considerable amount of it assessing that consensus and writing the close. The length of the passage was pointed out at the beginning of the proposal for it, lest anyone fail to consider it, and yet the passage received wide support. Thus the length argument has been duly rejected and it's not constructive to raise it again hoping for a different outcome. This is not how we should be spending our limited time. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  15:47, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The proposed wording obscures the fact that Trump made the false statements. That deviates far from almost every reliable source that has reported on the subject. We must be clear and direct. - MrX 🖋 16:22, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I also oppose the amended proposal because it shifts the focus to fact checkers. I would support Neutrality's proposal, or something like "Trump has made an unprecedented number of false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency." - MrX 🖋 11:41, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support The laundry lists of Trumps alleged deceptions is what is unprecedented.--MONGO (talk) 17:55, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the reasons states by Scjessey, Mandruss, and MrX, but I would favor a shorter "Trump has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency, at a level unprecedented in American politics" if someone proposed that. Neutralitytalk 18:00, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * - the statement "at a level unprecedented in American politics" would have to be attributed, otherwise we'd be treading in SYNTH territory or opinion rather than fact. The kind of coverage Trump has gotten is what's unprecedented, otherwise I would imagine the same could be said of a few former presidents. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme Talk 📧 18:04, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No, the reliable sources (not opinion pieces) directly support the "unprecedented" language, and this is a matter of fact rather opinion. Neutralitytalk 17:39, 27 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Support — the current version attributes the assessment of unprecedented mendacity to the media, which plays into the "fake news" narrative (itself mendacious), while the proposed version attributes the assessment to fact-checkers. That said, Neutrality's proposed language would be even better. soibangla (talk) 18:08, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Doesn’t matter — Devoting so much contributor time to trivial matters like this contributes to outsiders’ perceptions of Wikipedia as largely dysfunctional on controversial subjects. Time to move on. Greg L (talk) 18:59, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Too vague. I support Neutrality's version over both of the proposed versions by OP. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:12, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - let’s not revisit it yet again and so soon. The change in portrayal also seems unnecessary and not preceded by groundwork.  I think lead edits like this one should be a discussion first to show interests and concerns, not this every time jump straight to an A/B choice RFC that has not done substantial prep work in TALK.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:30, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support — the new version is shorter, to the point, and more neutral.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:23, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per reasons stated by MrX, Scjessey, Mandruss, and Soibangla . I also think that Neutrality's version would be even better. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:50, 26 May 2019 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:43, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment – Following several remarks about the clarity of the sentence, I have amended the proposed text. Could you reconsider your !votes in light of that? — JFG talk 11:17, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No. The current longer version is accurate while ascribing the conclusion "unprecedented" to fact-checkers is not. I don't think that at this stage we need to point out that "fact-checkers documented" and "the media described" but, if we do it, we should do it accurately. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:32, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This amended proposal also does not work for me for the reasons that Space4Time addressed above. I prefer my proposal above. Neutralitytalk 14:45, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No, since mine is a process objection. The hard-won consensus content should be considered good enough that we can better spend this time on other things. That will always be my position in situations like this. Thanks for the ping. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:45, 26 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Support for conciseness. — JFG talk 11:22, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I would also support " Media and academics have documented that…", per discussion below following Starship.paint's comments. — JFG talk 08:41, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose to above proposed version - to say that Fact-checkers ... documented ... an unprecedented number is inaccurate. As one can see from the sources already in the article at Donald Trump (that's 305-315 at the time of this post, none of the sources describing unprecedented are fact-checkers. /   /   /  /  /  /  /  Rather, they are academics or the media. I would instead add to the lede that The statements have been documented by fact-checkers; academics and the media have widely described the phenomenon as unprecedented in American politics. Alternatively, Neutrality's version is also okay.  starship  .paint  (talk) 11:34, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * After discussion with JFG below in the Discussion section, a version I would support is Media and academics have documented that Trump made an unprecedented number of false and misleading statements during his campaign and presidency.  starship .paint  (talk) 08:39, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Honestly, I don't think the difference is that large between the two version, but while we're here, the proposed version has a small edge over the current one. This is mainly because it's more concise and because saying that something "was described by the media" gives fodder to the "fake news" crowd who will claim that this is a conspiracy against the president by the news media, rather than demonstrable and well documented facts. PraiseVivec (talk) 15:58, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - it says what needs to be said succinctly and in compliance with NPOV. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme Talk 📧 16:49, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Neutrality offers a good choice for wording and Starship gives some good advise as well. Gandydancer (talk) 17:13, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - It's important to stay neutral. The current way seems like it's "Bashing" Trump. I don't care if you like or hate the man, the wording needs to be neutral.Gregnator (talk) 22:06, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Account^ created on the day the vote was cast. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:11, 6 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose - current wording is clearer.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:24, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - If the wording must be more precise, Neutrality's proposal is the most favorable and accurate. <font style="color:black;font-family:fantasy">Teammm $talk email$ 01:56, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - the amended wording is less wordy and more neutral; yet still tries to convey the same meaning without trying to color the reader's opinion.— Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 02:38, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Conveys the same information more concisely and with more punch, which is always a good thing in such a dense article. Also slightly reduces the Trump-versus-the-media framing, which is contrary to our core policies. R2 (bleep) 19:15, 28 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose: the original language is preferable; it's less weasely and matches sources better. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:54, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I prefer the original wording. The new proposal obscures the fact that Trump made the false statements, as noted by MrX. --Tataral (talk) 03:04, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The original wording looks to reflect the sourcing. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 12:57, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – The section itself needs rewriting for less-wooden style, to indicate depth of issue without details and statistics that already have an article devoted to them. Trump’s cavalier attitude toward facts, in the real estate development scene (Bonwit Teller site, Trump International Toronto) as well as during his presidency, could be summarized with one or two full-length sentences.Jessegalebaker (talk) 03:52, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose 2600:1702:2340:9470:D968:91F2:DF40:9D92 (talk) 16:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * - Note: 2600:1702:2340:9470:D968:91F2:DF40:9D92 has made few or no other edits outside this article. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme Talk 📧 17:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support as it's more concise. While I agree that stripped of context and put side by side, the new version seems less strongly worded because Trump is not the subject noun of the sentence, keep in mind that this sentence is currently buried in the middle of a paragraph where every other sentence begins with either "Trump" or "He" (meaning Trump). signed,Rosguill talk 04:46, 13 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose The subject is the falsehoods, and it does not matter who discovered/checked/compiled them, if he did it, and it is documented, then we say it. Trump called someone "nasty", then denied it claiming "fake news" - It was recorded and had been on national news the day before he denied it ever happened. Chaosdruid (talk) 22:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion: false statements
, you made this proposal. Can you explain your decision to limit the description of an unprecedented number to fact-checkers, when the body of the article (and the sources) doesn't actually say that fact-checkers have said that?  starship .paint  (talk) 11:49, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The original sentence says three things: 1) fact-checkers have documented a bunch of false and misleading statements by Trump; 2) the magnitude and raw count of false and misleading statements is unprecedented; 3) media have been pounding on this issue. My proposed version aims to simplify this state of affairs, and the original long-winded phrase, by focusing on points 1 and 2. You raise the issue that it's only media and academics that have used the "unprecedented" qualifier, I wasn't aware of that, and I'm pretty sure we can find fact-checker sources that use similar language. If I'm mistaken, then perhaps we should replace "unprecedented" with some other qualifier (staggering? unusual? unfathomable? just large?), but that would be a different discussion. — JFG talk 19:39, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand you want to simplify the sentence, but it seems it has lost its original meaning. I think fact-checkers are a subset of the media, and I don’t think there is very many of them that actively track Trump, probably less than seven? So I don’t see why we need to focus on fact-checkers when the wider media, plus the academics, have already given their descriptions. That’s already assuming you can find enough fact-checker sources to establish DUE weight. I note that there are two fact checker sources above (Kessler/Toronto’s Dale) but instead of putting unprecedented in their voice, they chose to quote other people.  starship  .paint  (talk) 23:27, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it’s basically three stating overall totals - Politifact of Tampa Bay Times, FactCheck.org of Annenberg center, and the Fact Checker of the Washington Post. The Toronto Star is also a player at a lower prominence.   Not an really documented in detail or described methods.   Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:27, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Well okay, but if you were to look below, the sources in this article saying unprecedented aren't these three publications.  starship .paint  (talk) 02:40, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * - could you read the below comment, thank you.  starship .paint  (talk) 09:39, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * - per your support votes, have you guys actually checked this article and the sources as to whether JFG's version is even accurate? In the sources from the article, which you can find below, they do not say Fact-checkers ... documented ... an unprecedented number.  starship .paint  (talk) 01:27, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That’s a good catch, hadn’t noticed that. I’m striking my vote for now. soibangla (talk) 03:11, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Here's the academic sources for unprecedented: paper by Carole McGranahan, quote from "historians", quote from Michael R. Beschloss, quote from "White House scholars and other students of government" and George Edwards, quote from Douglas Brinkley, paper by Heidi Taksdal Skjeseth, paper by Donnel Stern. Which of these are fact checkers?  starship .paint  (talk) 01:52, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Here's the journalists / writer for media sources for unprecedented: Chris Cillizza, Susan Glasser, Maria Konnikova. Which of these are fact checkers?  starship .paint  (talk) 01:52, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I hear you. So would you support " Media and academics have documented that Trump made an unprecedented number of false and misleading statements during his campaign and presidency"? I kept fact-checkers in there because they were prominently featured in arguments during the prior RfC. I'm personally fine putting Trump's statements in wikivoice instead of attributing them to anybody, but that would surely get much-stronger pushback. It's hard to achieve neutrality without weaseling. — JFG talk 11:49, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * - I would support that. It does reflect the current body. By the way, I just found one fact-checker source on his unprecedented falsehoods as a presidential candidate. If you restart this ... consider wikivoice as a third option.  starship  .paint  (talk) 13:45, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Good. I think this RfC is now too far underway to change anything, especially not adding a third option. But you could perhaps qualify your "strong oppose" in the survey section by stating that you would support the "media and academics" variant that we just discussed. I'll mention it next to my !vote as well. — JFG talk 08:37, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Done, added just below my vote.  starship .paint  (talk) 08:40, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Me too. 🤝 — JFG talk 08:45, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Time to wrap this up?
Can we get a close on this and let it be archived? There's clear opposition to this proposal, and now it's kind of just sitting here and not being dealt with. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:03, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sure whatever you want to do. Mgasparin (talk) 01:34, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Close was already requested at WP:ANRFC. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  02:46, 3 July 2019 (UTC)