Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 73

Trump's Political Career and the Lede Section
Currently the lede opens with, "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current President of the United States, in office since January 20, 2017. Before entering politics, he was a businessman and television personality." I would like to change the second sentence to something that I think is more precise and also better demonstrates how unusual his election is. My suggestion is this: "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current President of the United States, in office since January 20, 2017. Before running for President in 2016, he was a businessman and television personality."

I believe this more precisely conveys his entrance onto the political scene; he literally never held a government job--elected or appointed--before his election. Thoughts? Unschool 03:55, 23 January 2018 (UTC)


 * This is definitely more precise, in a manner of speaking. My question is, when did he actually enter politics? When he was claiming that Obama's U.S. citizenship is questionable, beginning in 2011, is this when he entered politics ? Did he back any candidates for office before officially running for president? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:13, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , your question goes to the issue of what it means to "enter politics"? To my mind, it refers largely to campaigning to win elected office.  I don't consider someone who is merely a behind the scenes player (like George Soros or the Koch brothers) to have actually "entered" politics.  But maybe mine is not a typical view.
 * I'd support, with some tweaks. He entered politics in 2000 with reform party candidacy, so the current version isn't really accurate. I'd say even "Before being President, he was a .." Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:28, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The 2000 "campaign" is an interesting thing. Was he actually running?  At the time, I would have said no, that he was simply doing what he had done before--trying to build up his brand.  There's no evidence that he did anything serious in 2000.  But you know what?  I (and some others) expected the same thing in 2016.  Even after he came down the escalator, I assumed that he would pull out (citing some BS reason) before having to fill out the financial paperwork. So I don't know.  I'm still inclined to say his initial "entrance" into politics was in 2015, but I'm solidly flexible on the matter. :-) Unschool 05:20, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Background: item 17. &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  05:13, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Current lead is not bad because before entering politics he was still a businessman and television personality. I support updating lead per Unschool for being more specific. Lorstaking (talk) 07:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose changing the lead. Trump was still a businessman while running for president. GoodDay (talk) 15:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * . Obviously your observation is correct, but I disagree with your conclusion.  This is actually a common formulation.  For example, at Bill Clinton, it says, "Prior to the presidency, he was the Governor of Arkansas" even though he was still governor of Arkansas.  I don't think this is a major problem, but maybe I'm missing something. Unsch<b style="color: #7ED324;">ool</b> 05:20, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with this assessment, as he did not formally turn over control of his business interests until after he was elected. I'd probably support saying "Before being elected President in 2016...". Rreagan007 (talk) 18:34, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I would support the proposed change. Trump's candidacy announced in June 2015 was a watershed moment in his life. From that point until the inauguration, he spent most of his time campaigning and transitioning; his business interests were sent to the back burner and handled by his children. Trump did make a couple public appearances to promote the opening of his Washington hotel and a golf course in Scotland, but even there most of the comments were political in nature and related to his campaign (putting to rest the Obama birther claims, and commenting on the Brexit vote, respectively). With regard to his "TV personality" career, he explicitly gave that up in order to run for president, although one could argue that as a candidate and as President, he has been more of a TV personality than ever… His drama skills served him well in both roles. — JFG talk 23:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Wording should be tweaked to Before running for president in 2015, he was a businessman and television personality. or Before announcing his candidacy in June 2015, he was a businessman and television personality. or Before entering the 2016 presidential race, he was a businessman and television personality. (changes to OP's proposal in bold) — JFG talk 23:16, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Since this appears to be gaining a little traction, I'll say that I oppose capitalization of any standalone occurrence of "president", per MOS:JOBTITLES. That's "Before running for president...". &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree – edited my proposed alternate wording accordingly. — JFG talk 23:32, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. And both Steve Quinn and GoodDay have this right in their comments above. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, this makes sense in terms of "before entering politics" - but what about the verb "was"? He is still a businessman, in that he owns and profits from (but does not currently operate) The Trump Organization. Maybe we could say "was primarily a businessman and television personality"? --MelanieN (talk) 00:40, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That's nitpicking. He is no longer a businessman even though he still owns large parts of The Trump Organization, in the same way that Bill Gates is no longer a businessman although he still holds a gazillion shares of Microsoft. Trump will perhaps revert to business after his presidency, but that's a topic we can park until 2021 (unless Mueller time prophecies come to pass). — JFG talk 00:46, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Before entering the 2016 presidential race, he was a businessman and television personality. is good; support that. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:48, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I think I'm seeing a lot of general support for the gist of my proposal, but I know we need to tread carefully in the lede of this particular article. Shall we compare a few versions of this idea, with a variety of tweaks, or is it acceptable to be bold and make a change? And if we do, do we change #17? (thanks for pointing this out; I had not been aware of this). <b style="color: #52A249;">Un</b><b style="color: #23CE40;">sch</b><b style="color: #7ED324;">ool</b> 04:48, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Initial discussion appears to converge quickly, so getting consensus shouldn't rise to RfC level. I'll open a week-long survey to check if the wording getting most support can actually be accepted by a majority of editors. — JFG talk 12:03, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Survey: Amending lede paragraph
From the discussion above, there appears to be some emerging traction for amending the lead sentence (consensus item #17) as follows (changed part highlighted in italics, instead of "Before entering politics"):

Please indicate your support or opposition to this amendment. — JFG talk 12:03, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Support, per . — JFG talk 12:03, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - A more accurate wording would be "Before assuming office, he was a businessman and television personality". GoodDay (talk) 12:06, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Removal of the second sentence entirely, would suffice. GoodDay (talk) 14:22, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Support, per comments and replies above. <b style="color: #52A249;">Un</b><b style="color: #23CE40;">sch</b><b style="color: #7ED324;">ool</b> 12:49, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The word "before" implies he is no longer these things, which is arguably untrue in the latter case and unquestionably untrue in the former. He is no less a businessman now then he was in 2014. GCG (talk) 13:38, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Certainly can argue that he is still a businessman or that he was a businessman till he entered office (the latter may be the case), but the wording is still an improvement -, do you think the proposed wording is better than the current wording? Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:52, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I prefer the current wording. But, if you're going to change it, adopt the version I mentioned. GoodDay (talk) 13:53, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I prefer the Silvio Berlusconi model (...is an American businessman and politician currently serving as...) but as that is a tall order, removing the second sentence is a good choice. Merkel is not a research scientist, Macron is not an investment banker. Even the most whitewashed description of Trump's control of his company would not suggest that he is no longer a businessman. GCG (talk) 17:13, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I concur with GCG's comment. I am now of the opinion that either the lede paragraph needs to be rewritten to acknowledge he is still a businessman and a TV personality, or the second sentence can be removed entirely because it is already handled properly in the body of the article and the infobox. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:06, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - While I personally think that the mention that he is still a businessman is unnecessary, it is nonetheless undeniably true. Rather than remove the second sentence, 's notion of following the Berlusconi model strikes me as nearly perfect. <b style="color: #52A249;">Un</b><b style="color: #23CE40;">sch</b><b style="color: #7ED324;">ool</b> 02:09, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * How can you assert as "undeniably true" that Trump is still a businessman? Is it because he is trying to run the country like a business? Regarding his real estate business and other dealings, he is only just a part owner of The Trump Organization, just like Bill Gates is a part owner of Microsoft. There is no longer any business involvement in either case. — JFG talk 16:14, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course Trump is still a businessman. He is still the owner of a vast business empire that still operates, and he still makes money from. He continues to entertain guests (often at the taxpayers' expense) who then patronize his properties, and he continues to use his properties (again, at taxpayers' expense) to host official White House events. No other president in US history has done more than Trump to enhance his own wealth, brand, and businesses. And despite presidential custom, he refused to divest himself from businesses that could cause massive conflicts of interest. There's even a case gradually winding its way through the courts concerning emoluments. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:28, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, we just disagree on the definition of "businessman". No big deal. — JFG talk 20:20, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * And: by most third-party accounts, Trump's wealth has actually decreased as a result of the backlash against his campaign, election, and presidency. — JFG talk 20:21, 29 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose per GoodDay's argument. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:51, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per GoodDay. <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">-- ψλ  ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 15:57, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

CPAC 2011 speech
"Trump made his first speaking appearance at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in February 2011. His appearance at CPAC was organized by GOProud, an LGBT conservative organization, in conjunction with GOProud supporter Roger Stone, who was close with Trump. GOProud pushed for a write-in campaign for Trump at CPAC's presidential straw poll. The 2011 CPAC speech Trump gave is credited for helping kick-start his political career within the Republican Party.[328][329] Though not yet promoting the "birther" conspiracy theory, his conspiratorial suspicion about Obama's background was well received, when he falsely claimed that "The people who went to school with him never saw him, they don’t know who he is. Crazy.""

Since there is a paragraph about this speech, I can't think of a good reason to remove the last sentence, which happens to be the only part about what Trump actually said in the speech. It would be highly interesting for any politician to tell a massive untruth like that at their first major political speech, and it's especially significant in view of Trump's subsequent high-profile promotion of birtherism in the following years, as well as his current widely known and recognized reputation for alternative facts. The edit summary says "a journalist's opinion of the GOP reaction at CPAC 2011 is anecdotal at best", but that is a red herring, because it is not about a journalist's opinion. I suppose you could remove "well-received" but I don't think that would be an improvement, as it helps the reader understand his promotion of birtherism for the subsequent years. The edit summary also says "Trump's birtherism is already covered at length above", which seems to me to be a reason why this quote is important to include, not exclude. zzz (talk) 15:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Funny, I was about to write this when zzz added their last sentence above... My edit summary also says that Trump's birtherism is covered in depth a couple paragraphs above, so this add-on is not very informative to our readers. — JFG talk 16:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It informs our readers when he began promoting conspiracy theories about Obama. The fact that the birtherism is covered in this article is a good reason to include this. As well as the other reasons I mentioned above. zzz (talk) 16:11, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree that “well received” is a problem; the audience reaction is only hinted at in the source ("How Republicans Normalized Donald Trump's Racism". Mother Jones. January 12, 2018. Retrieved January 21, 2018), and that article’s tone is hardly neutral. Also, the sentence as written suggests he said this long before becoming a birther, when in fact it was only a month. How about something like this: A month before becoming a promoter of the Obama “birther” theory, he foreshadowed his doubts Obama’s background when he falsely claimed in his speech that "The people who went to school with him never saw him, they don’t know who he is. Crazy." Thoughts? --MelanieN (talk) 16:21, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That looks fine to me. It is more informative. Definitely an improvement. zzz (talk) 16:29, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * What do you think? --MelanieN (talk) 16:45, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Still an undue anecdote imho. We have a 229-word paragraph detailing Trump's involvement in birtherism from 2011 to 2016, that's plenty enough. (And I fondly remember the lengthy discussion that led to consensus on this very-well-sourced paragraph…) — JFG talk 17:02, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There is an entire paragraph about the speech, which "kick-start[ed] his political career", but doesn't mention anything he said in the speech. Donald Trump began a speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference on Feb. 10, 2011, by announcing that he is "thinking about" running for president. Too often, Trump said, successful people don't run for president because they don't want to be "scrutinized or abused." As a result, he said, we get presidents like Barack Obama. "Our current president came out of nowhere. Came out of nowhere," Trump said. "In fact, I'll go a step further: the people that went to school with him, they never saw him, they don't know who he is. It's crazy." The line drew big applause from the conservative audience. zzz (talk) 17:37, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

The CNN source currently cited: [http://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/03/politics/donald-trump-first-speech-to-cpac/index.html in an early sign of things to come, he toyed with a conspiracy theory. "Our current president came out of nowhere.," Trump said. "In fact, I'll take it even further: The people who went to school with him, they never saw him. They don't know who he is. It's crazy.] zzz (talk) 17:52, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Those are certainly better sources than the Mother Jones article. And they demonstrate that his "nobody saw him" comment was widely reported both at the time and since. Why do we give two sentences to GOProud, but none to the most reported aspect of his CPAC speech? I would still suggest using the sentence I proposed above, but with the CNN source instead of Mother Jones. --MelanieN (talk) 18:03, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree, I only just read the CNN source. All the stuff about GOProud is pretty much irrelevant as far as I can see. zzz (talk) 18:11, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Can trim/remove GOPproud stuff unless it is more reported, plus yup add about that. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:37, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

If we're going to mention what Trump said at CPAC 2011, it would fit more naturally within the existing paragraph on his "feelers" for the 2012 campaign. Here's what I would suggest: Thoughts on this plan? — JFG talk 20:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Move the CPAC stuff to the paragraph starting with "Trump publicly speculated about seeking the 2012 Republican presidential nomination"
 * Combine this with the following paragraph "In the 2012 Republican primaries, Trump generally had polled…", which ends with his non-candidacy in the 2012 race.
 * Move the whole "birtherism" paragraph to the "Racial views" section, where it belongs.
 * Add the CPAC statement "classmates don't know who he is" (about Obama) to that birtherism paragraph, next to his questioning Obama's student records.
 * That sounds like a good reorganization and makes sense to me, except that I would hate to see all references to birtherism removed from the political area and banished to the racial views section. It was an important part of his candidacy and I would think that it (along with its forerunner "nobody knows him") belongs in the campaign section. On the other hand, which campaign section? We have two separate campaign sections and birtherism etc. figured in both of them. I'd like to see more discussion on that aspect of the proposal. --MelanieN (talk) 21:45, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I have given it a go, with a series of edits. Feel free to improve from there. — JFG talk 22:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I was hoping to see more discussion here before anything was done. You only proposed this a few hours ago, nobody but me has weighed in, and my input was a call for more opinions. --MelanieN (talk) 00:13, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It is mainly referred to in sources about the speech, where it drew massive applause, so that is where it should be in the text. I suppose it could also have a brief mention in the racial views section, since it did appear in one source about his racial views. zzz (talk) 03:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I am extremely displeased that has performed all these edits to the article with minimal discussion or support from other editors. Particularly egregious is the blanking of content with a bullshit edit summary referring to discussion on a completely different article! I would like to see JFG revert all these edits and return to the "regular order" of seeking a consensus before doing something so drastic. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:51, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Feel free to restore whatever you wish to. Improving the article is sometimes faster by doing bold things than conducting lengthy discussions beforehand. But you know I am not the one to refrain from discussion and consensus-building, quite the contrary. — JFG talk 12:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, if agrees, I think you should revert all your changes and take a more deliberate approach. With this article, exhaustive and expansive discussion before even the tiniest change has become the necessary norm. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:54, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Woops. I just added a comma without prior consensus. Sorry! &#8213; Mandruss &#9742;  13:11, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, making these changes took me some effort, I took into account suggestions from various editors, including some I originally disagreed with, and I believe the article has been improved as a result. If you have further improvements to make, I'd be pleased to see them. — JFG talk 15:25, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Yes, JFG, "sometimes" it is faster to improve an article by doing bold things. Those "times" do not include when the article is controversial or under DS, or when there is active discussion going at the talk page. So the bottom line is I agree with Scjessey. IMO it is inappropriate to implement a major change like this two hours after proposing it, and after receiving no feedback except a call for more discussion. There's no hurry. Let's take it deliberately and work out what consensus is, OK? and THEN implement it. Two people (counting me now) have asked you to self-revert. Do I understand that you are refusing? --MelanieN (talk) 15:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, self reverting won't take nearly as much effort. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:28, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Trump health
About this edit, I don't think a list of medications is really necessary; already mentioned statins lowering cholestrol before and the rest doesn't seem all that important.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. I'm not even sure that we need to include anything about his annual physical. It seems very mundane.- MrX 🖋 12:43, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Same here, actually removed all the health stuff a while back except for the alcohol and marijuana part; was reverted. Still, needs just a one-two sentence summary atmost IMO - I wrote "In 2016, Trump's personal physician, Harold Bornstein, issued a medical report that showed Trump's blood pressure and liver and thyroid function to be in normal ranges.[60][61] It also showed that he is overweight and takes statins to lower his cholesterol.[61]" some time ago which was enough; the content of these two reports which differ slightly can be summarized in that much text. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:21, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I figured everyone would be on board. With all the talk on this page about his mental health we finally have a doctor that examined it and reported on it. Given the previous and on going coverage of his health a small section is just fine. PackMecEng (talk) 13:35, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps just that part from the physical, but it needs trimming. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The mental health screening is probably the only meaningful information. We might want to note why its meaningful.- MrX 🖋 13:41, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That would go against all previous discussions about his mental health. PackMecEng (talk) 14:01, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * These sources were available after that discussion and a briefing to members of Congress seems pretty significant in my view. In any case, I don't think we should discuss his mental health screening without giving some context.- MrX 🖋 14:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Haven't been paying too much attention to those discussion, but what about something like "Jackson said that Trump achieved a perfect score on the cognitive test; this was in the midst of media speculation on his mental health"? assuming can find sources to connect the two to not be SYNTH Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:21, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That sounds decent, I could probably go for that. PackMecEng (talk) 14:23, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That might work, But wasn't it screening, not a test?- MrX 🖋 14:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Dunno, copied that first part from this article :) Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:26, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure, I don't see any sources at first blush saying screening. PackMecEng (talk) 14:29, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * CNN made a point of distinguishing between test and screening for some reason, but I see that WaPo calls it test so that works for me.- MrX 🖋 14:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I mean we can just specify the actual test, the Montreal_Cognitive_Assessment Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah kind of muddy on screening or test after looking at our article on it. PackMecEng (talk) 14:42, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I think a very short item could be used, but I’m not sure where in the article. Maybe under “presidency”. (Never mind, I see we have a "health" section under "personal".) Something like “During his annual physical in January 2018, Trump requested the White House physician to give him a cognitive screening test, which he passed with a perfect score of 30 out of 30.” If we’re going to mention this at all, I think it’s important to mention that it was at Trump’s request. And I wouldn’t use it as a back-door way of bringing in the media speculation about his mental health. --MelanieN (talk) 14:34, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Considering that apparently Trump specifically asked for and did the test to want to put that speculation to bed, I don't see it as a big leap and as long as we don't mention the actual speculation I don't see large issues in it. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:40, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree to mention both the test and the context; no prior president ever asked for an assessment of their mental health, but no prior president was so furiously accused of being a lunatic. — JFG talk 14:49, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree with any mention of this so-called cognitive function test. Unless we have third party description as to the nature of the test and what it is designed to diagnose and its reliability, I see this as misleading and unencyclopedic. It could have been the test they give Air Force pilots to see whether they can hear the radio after sleep deprivation for all we know.  We don't know that this was a test for early-stage dementia and ADD. But those are the concerns POTUS's inspires in the press and inner circle. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 16:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a deflection and a misrepresentation of widespread RS discussion of concerns about POTUS mental condition accross the political spectrum. "Lunatic" is very cute but I don't see any RS stating he bays at the moon. There's a specific concern as to his attention span, which observers claim has deteriorated, there's concern about his ability to absorb new information, there's concern about his memory, there's concern that he's losing touch with his personal relationships. These are all widely repoprted in RS.  As to your assertion that no other president elicited such concerns, that is false.  Reagan is now widely acknowledged to have been in dementia for at least the last 4 of his 8 years in office.  Nixon was a raving drunk toward the end as his presidency unraveled.  In both cases, this was concealed for years after the fact. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 16:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Your usual attention to detail seems to be on pause today. Re:"lunatic" I added a smiley; I did not state that RS were making such an outrageous claim... although you would surely admit that coverage of this president often reads "Trump is dangerously out of his mind; won't somebody take away his nuclear button?" Re:concerns about Trump's cognition, they have been totally refuted by Dr. Jackson in 56 minutes of press conference, in which he explained that in his daily interactions with him, he perceived Trump as "very sharp", and that he would not have recommended conducting any kind of cognitive assessment, were it not for the president's request. Re:Reagan and others, I'm well aware of those cases, but you did not read my comments accurately: I did not "assert that no other president elicited such concerns", I wrote that "no prior president ever asked for an assessment of their mental health". But thanks for the straws. — JFG talk 16:38, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It was wikilinked by to Montreal_Cognitive_Assessment. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks I will have a looksee. Do we have 3rd party comment as to the suitability and reliability of that metric? <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 16:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah just search; IIRC some were saying it does not measure early-stage dementia however the physician said that he was monitoring trump daily and didn't find any signs of that. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:23, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There are starting to be 3rd party reports that will help us put this in proper context and perspective. I do think it's good news that POTUS perfect score shows he knows the difference between rhino and an elephant, but boasting about the perfect score on the dementia thing could be a sign of cognitive impairment.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 16:27, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not appropriate for us to do our own Original Research about the validity or applicability of this particular mental status examination, or to try to find some third party commentary dismissing the test or result. Our job is to report why the doctor did a cognitive evaluation, what examination was used (that's a good idea), and what the result was. Period. --MelanieN (talk) 16:32, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

You removed the one part of the whole health section that almost everyone agree has weight here. What part of it does not make sense to you? PackMecEng (talk) 16:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Right: the mental health test is the topic that attracted most attention from RS. Must restore,, please self-revert. — JFG talk 16:43, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The MoCA is an extremely low bar to pass. I don't think it is particularly important, and I certainly don't think we need to flatter Trump with the use of the word "perfect" in the text. If we must have it, "passed" is sufficient. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This is an absolutely meaningless statement -- He scored 30/30 on some "test". MelanieN this has nothing to do with Original Research and who said anything about "dismissing the test result"? We need to hear from acknowledged authorities about the significance of this Montreal test. I am sure that within a week there will be loads of thoughtful information and comments that will enable us to present a properly contextualized and NPOV mention if indeed it then appears to be DUE WEIGHT. Just because it's quantified and you know that 30/30 = 1.00 do you think there's any information in the statistic?  <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 16:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Look. We have had a consensus here not to use “armchair psychiatry” type comments about Trump’s mental health. We have insisted that such comments could only come from someone who has actually examined him. Well, now we have a report from someone who has actually examined him. That report has been widely reported by Reliable Sources. That report, and only that, is what we should put in the article. Even if some of us personally dislike it or disagree with it. Even if some individual third parties quibble about the type or meaning of the test. We have guidelines to follow here, and we should follow them. Not go shopping around looking for “acknowledged authorities” to criticize the test. Not unless criticism of the test becomes an issue as widely reported as the test results themselves. If that happens, then “within a week” as you say we can revisit the topic. In the meantime, please note that our own WP article says the assessment, which you sneeringly dismiss as "some "test" " and "an absolutely meaningless statement", is widely used and has been validated as a test of mild cognitive impairment. --MelanieN (talk) 17:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * MelanieN, it's not helping to suggest this has to do with editors' opinions. I'm a scientist. You'll find me repeatedly saying more or less the same thing on diverse subjects relating to complex technical measurements. None of us who are not MDs and Psychologists knows what the significance of this statistic may be. Neither do mainstream journalists or their readers. That's why, in cases like this, we see journalists seeking out the most qualified among acknowledged mainstream experts to explain and contextualize the statistic. Shopping for "acknowledged authorities" is the core of WP editing. I don't understand why that would concern you, let alone get you so upset? <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 17:36, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Let me just say that "he scored 30/30 on some (scarequotes) "test" " does not sound much like a scientific reaction. And "boasting about the perfect score on the dementia thing could be a sign of cognitive impairment" sounds like your opinion, not a research-based conclusion or Reliable Source quote. BTW note that the doctor based his conclusion not just on the test, but also on daily observation of the patient - which according to the Vox source you linked is a more reliable indicator of cognitive impairment than any test. --MelanieN (talk) 17:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * And BTW, I have no POV about POTUS or his cognitive condition. And you don't see me jumping on the bandwagon here to label him a sex molester or to label him a racist, or any of the other things you might expect to see if I were motivated by animus toward POTUS. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 17:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * So what is your proposal for the addition of this information? PackMecEng (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You mean the mental test POTUS requested? I don't see that's significant. The coverage of it sets it in the context of the Michael Wolff book furor, but that too is fraught with content and sourcing problems. RS tell us Trump requested the test, which the MD would not otherwise have administered, in order to have some boasting rights.  Remember nothing is disclosed w/o a President's consent. Maybe he took a Myers-Briggs profile and came out with some weird result we'll never see. Who knows?  At any rate as editors we need to be careful not to give undue weight to recent "news" that originates from self-interest. I haven't looked far and wide yet, but from what I see in the Washington Post, the test does not really relate to the concerns that folks are voicing and that it would be highly significant if they were refuted. Do you think this test is a noteworthy fact or event in the life of Trump?  I don't see any source describing it as such.   Seems to me more like fast-fading recentism like last week's tweets or the perfect piece of chocolate cake he had while bombing Afghanistan.  Remember that? Is it in the article?  Seems about the same to me. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 03:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Given the vast amounts of previous discussion on this topic in the talk page history and the constant discussion for months from RS about his mental health and that we have a dedicated health section with this easily applying I must disagree with your assessment. Heck we even have a current condenses at the top of the page dealing with how we would go about including this very type of material. That coupled with several editors above asking that it be reinstated I would like to ask that you restore the material. PackMecEng (talk) 03:57, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks -- that helps me understand your view a bit better, I think. I do not think that this test, requested by POTUS, has anything to do with the general concern over what critics call a personality disorder, memory problems, ignorance -- all the things that the originator of this screening test says his metric does not address. It's not as if this exercise settles anything with respect to the issue, so whatever discussion of his emotional or mental quirks previously occurred here, I do not believe any RS is stating that all the fears and doubts have been resolved or even addressed by this test.  I found the piece by Dana Milbank interesting.  Should we put in the article that he's got the great Trump genes and he would live to be 200 if only...?  Actually I think the yearly updates on his health are more suitable for the Presidency of DT article, because presidents do get these annual checkups.  I don't think most ordinary bios go into annual detail about the subjects' livers. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 04:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarifications. The health section is and should remain brief, we agree on that. Given the weight of RS coverage, a short mention of the cognition test is warranted, per WP:DUE. Adding back a sentence without the "perfect score" note, per. — JFG talk 07:06, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I just notice that this edit also inserted a new sentence giving a personal opinion of Jackson that POTUS is "sharp" -- this is not a professional or medical opinion, it goes beyond any consensus here. It insinuates POV into the article. I'm very disappointed that this was tacked on without disclosure here. Busy folks like me take comments at face value and I very well might never have checked the article text to see this gratuitous addition. I also note that the cited source for this add-on POV was the live coverage of the extended press conference referenced by Dana Milbank here . Live streamed play by play is about as far as WP editors could get from WP:DUE edit the summary claimed. I have reverted it. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 21:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

The New York Times, science reporter Gina Kolata, yesterday: [https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/19/health/trump-cognitive-screening-dementia.html Trump Passed a Cognitive Exam. What Does That Really Mean?] Good description of the MoCA. I doubt it changes anything for us, but it's informative FTR. It does say that 2630 is considered "normal". &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:37, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Girther movement
An article entitled Girther movement has been created and being considered for deletion at Articles for deletion/Girther movement. Is it perhaps time for a spin-off of the health section? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:39, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * We have just a few lines about Trump's health here; not enough material to spin off. And Girther movement, while a cute novelty name, doesn't seem encyclopedic at all. — JFG talk 16:42, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is much to write about Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:15, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * God no. Somebody invents a cute pun and it immediately gets an article? This shouldn't even ben in this article, much less have an article of its own. This is the kind of thing that gives Wikipedia a bad name. --MelanieN (talk) 17:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I say no as well, but really User:MelanieN pathetic puns are not what give Wikipedia a bad name. What truly makes Wikipedia look bad is that we have all these wonderful policies about neutrality and preserving reliably-sourced information but hardly the slightest enforcement mechanism when a majority of editors at an article want to elevate partisanship above those policies.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * What gives Wikipedia a bad name is the appearance that any time anyone criticizes Trump or he says something controversial, somebody immediately (within hours) writes a new article about it. At most - at MOST - such things should be added to an existing article, and only split off into a standalone article if they gain enough weight for it. --MelanieN (talk) 18:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe both give Wikipedia a bad name. While way meta, I definitely agree with Any that there is no mechanism for policy enforcement and the current system presumes incorrectly that a majority of editors who can type policy TLAs can't be wrong. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


 * We have been debating Trump's racism for years. (SeeTalk:Donald Trump/Archive 2). This latest news flurry was just the tipping point in a 45 year history. What really harms Wikipedia is the blatant obstruction of material by partisans on all sides, when that material doesn't agree with personally held views. It's particularly bad when it's compounded with misrepresenting sources, misrepresenting policies, gaming the system, sock puppetry, meat puppetry, fake retirements, and outright lying.- MrX 🖋 18:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * How do "fake retirements" have the slightest thing to do with this? I've retired a few times, and later come back.  AFAIK, that doesn't have the slightest effect on article content.  Just because you haven't retired doesn't mean not retiring is some immense virtue, does it?  As far as this article is concerned, we have included race-related incidents in chronological order.  Many BLPs at Wikipedia (like many biographical books) are written with chronology in mind, and it's no sin to favor a chronological BLP structure over a topic-based structure.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Fake retirements tend to be manipulative.- MrX 🖋 19:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That’s about threatening to leave. It’s not about simply leaving without previous threats, and then later returning to the chagrin of User:MrX.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Back to your original suggestion, Emir: The time may come for creating an article called "Health of Donald Trump". But that will only be if his health becomes a major issue to his biography or his presidency. We aren't even close to that point yet. --MelanieN (talk) 20:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * P.S. I looked to see if there are other “health of” articles about currently living people. I found none. The closest thing was Health of Ronald Reagan which is a redirect to his main article. --MelanieN (talk) 20:15, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Challenges to "excellent health"
The New York Times, yesterday: Trump's Physical Revealed Serious Heart Concerns, Outside Experts Say

Dr. David Maron, director of preventive cardiology at Stanford University’s medical school: "Asked if Mr. Trump is in perfect health, Dr. Maron offered a blunt reply: 'God, no.'"

Dr. Eric Topol, a cardiologist at the Scripps Research Institute: "I would never use the words 'excellent health.' How you could take these indices and say excellent health? That is completely contradicted."

And some unspecified number of unnamed physicians with similar sentiments.

These are not "armchair diagnoses"; these doctors have access to the same test results as do Jackson and the rest of the world, and they are speaking only to those results, so Jackson's opinion is no more authoritative. It might even be said that two specialists in cardiology are more authoritative than one generalist in these matters.

I also don't think we can completely ignore the reality that, given Trump's history, Jackson no doubt understood that his continued employment at the White House might depend on his sugar-coating his evaluation. Per Physician to the President, "The White House Physician is often selected personally by the President...".

It seems to me that, if we include Jackson's determination of "excellent health", policy requires one short sentence about the direct contradictions to that determination. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  14:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Support mention of this, but without the WP:OR about the sugar-coating. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no proposal to say anything about the sugar-coating in the article. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  14:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm repeating the links I offered in the cognition test section above:  Because its my nature to err on the side of moderation and caution, I did not add my personal take on this, which Mandruss in part confirmed: The doctor's duty is to care for his patient, and we can be confident that he did that. Like other government employees who come in contact with POTUS, RS have speculated that the doctor may have concluded that flattery and sycophantic bluster is part of how to ensure a working relationship with POTUS. Several broadcast and print commentators have noted that the doctor appeared to be misrepresenting POTUS health condition, sometimes in words similar to the famous Dr. Bornstein of NYC.  These doctors are no doubt dedicated to their duties, but a little exaggeration or fib in public discourse doesn't compromise POTUS medical care and may even support it by cementing their relationship with their patient.
 * In terms of our repsonsibility as editors however, we nearly fell into the trap of immediately parroting White House talking point recentism and putting it in the article. Where RS explain how to separate the facts from the promotional presentation and talking points, we should reflect the facts, not the talking points. We went to a lot of trouble to get to that point with statements from Spicer, Conway, Hubakee-Sanders et al, and RS are now explaining that even this military MD needs the same scrutiny. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 16:57, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

"All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Have we really become so disconnected from policy that we will dismiss these prominent doctors because half the world hates Donald Trump? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  17:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * For the record, Jackson served under several prior presidents, and was personally appointed as head physician by Barack Obama. I don't think it's fair to insinuate partisanship on his part. — JFG talk 21:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * - I'm not insinuating (is that your best choice of word?) partisanship. I'm saying that he may very well give a higher priority to holding onto his prestigious position than to complete candor with the press and public. This is not covered by his Hippocratic Oath. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:00, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * We should not censor content that is reported in the reliable sources because someone may have not completed candor with the press and the public. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Who is proposing censoring what content? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:05, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You are not insinuating, but some commenters cited by RS are, and I'm not sure an encyclopedia should give any weight to their opinions (WP:FALSEBALANCE comes to mind). — JFG talk 04:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Links to articles insinuating "partisanshp"? Otherwise this is nonsense deflection.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 04:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * What on earth do those commenters have to do with this question? Drs. Maron and Topol are not insinuating partisanship, they are offering very educated medical opinions that these test results do not indicate "excellent health". That's all they are saying as far as I know, and their views and those of the others who agree with them are all I propose to represent in the one short sentence. Surely you're not claiming that FALSEBALANCE applies to these statements; their views are neither minority nor extraordinary.
 * We must dismiss any and all doctors who have not examined the patient. I'd say the same thing if the White House doctor said Trump has cancer while notable cancer experts who reviewed his X-Rays independently would assess his prospects as excellent. — JFG talk 18:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Very cute. However you're not responding to the central points, a) that we are not discussing a diagnosis, and b) that we are discussing the press talking points, not the medical duties, functions, or responsibilities of an examining physician. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 19:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * After 2 years of editing articles about Trump and his campaign, haven't we learned to follow RS presentations? As Dana Milbank and others have detailed with great insight, those around Trump and his organization appear to sustain their relationships with him by indulging his ego where it does not directly compromise their work or legal responsibilities. We've repeatedly read about this -- Gen'l Kelly, Gary Cohn, many US Senators, et al.  Mandruss has stated this very clearly. Nobody would accuse the MD of having violated his Hippocratic Oath (which POTUS sucessfully differentiated from the Rhinoceros Oath on the Montreal test 😲). But the unprecedented over-the-top press session afterward has convincingly been identified by notable commentators as Trump-thump rather than medical information. If it's not information, it's not censoring information. (Not that it is "censoring" anything else, either.) <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 22:18, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * To be crystal clear, I'm not advocating "censoring" "excellent health", I'm advocating adding the very legitimate counterpoint. Per policy. I'm no longer clear what you're advocating, SPEC. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:24, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Just a random comment, but you folks are aware that the Hippocratic oath isn't actually legally binding (patient confidentiality and protection laws are). --2001:999:43:B30E:A994:E6AF:910A:FED9 (talk) 09:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * But the Oath doesn't have to be legally binding to be binding in other spheres, e.g. the medical profession. A physician may be struck off the medical register for contravening it, and lose their right to practice medicine. 2.28.151.167 (talk) 08:41, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Other comments

 * Also the famed Dr. Gupta on CNN and various ones on broadcast news. And there was the bit this morning where right-leaning Republican Joe Scarborough compared his own height and weight to the figures the MD presented and sneered. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 19:54, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Experts interviewed by NY Times concerning cardiac and other risk factors: Trump Heart Health and Cholesterol.
 * Newsweek: Trump's Dangerous weight and skyrocketing cholesterol <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 21:37, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Specific proposal 1
Propose adding the sentence bolded below, shown in context with the current content. Please read the discussion at before !voting.


 * Support as proposer, per WP:NPOV. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Support as per nomination. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:57, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Alternative opinions about Trump's health are a dime a dozen. Let's stick to what was stated by doctors who have examined him. — JFG talk 18:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Guesses by armchair doctors should not be included. PackMecEng (talk) 19:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Specific proposal 1A
Same as above with a slight modification: Several prominent physicians who have not examined Trump have commented that his weight, lifestyle, and test results do not indicate excellent health.
 * Support as proposer. The test results are the least of it. Everyone is pointing out that a 71 year old man who is overweight, does not exercise, and has a poor diet is almost by definition not in "excellent health". --MelanieN (talk) 23:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per proposer and WP:NPOV. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:51, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Instead of "who have not examined Trump" -- which will sound to our readers as if they're casual opinions -- I would use "who reviewed the test data". It's not merely what MelanieN says, because most folks would say he doesn't appear to be healthy, but it is based on specific metrics that are used to screen for disease. And remember that none of these metrics is equivalent to saying he's got 3 weeks to live. We're talking about whether he has 10% or 20% chance of a crisis event. That's evident from the extensive data that was released and doesn't require physically being in the room. Nobody is saying he has pleurisy, COPD, angel-breath, or anything else. So they are not doing armchair diagnosis -- they are just telling the press what any well-informed MD knows but reporters and the general public don't. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 00:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No, because it's not just the "test data" that they are basing their opinions on. They are looking at the entire picture. They are saying that a person who is overweight, has a poor diet, does not exercise, AND has certain test data cannot be described as being in excellent health. As for those "test metrics," the calcium level has been debunked as an indicator of cardiac health; his cholesterol is high but his dosage has been increased so that will likely come down; what other "test data" are you talking about? We do need to make it clear that these other doctors have not examined Trump. But they are evaluating ALL of the publicly available information, not just test results. In fact no responsible clinician would decide on the state of a patient's health based solely on lab results with no other information available. --MelanieN (talk) 05:42, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * P.S. I wonder if we should say "who have not personally examined Trump". --MelanieN (talk) 05:47, 20 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Support needs to be specified that they have not examined. Lorstaking (talk) 10:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Needs tweak "who have not examined..." sounds like they have no basis for their assessment. The key points are 1. They are not diagnosing disease, which is what the Goldwater principle deals with. They're just pointing out very fundamental flaws in the White House press narrative. 2. They have all the same data Jackson had. 3. They are professionals speaking in that capacity and we should not suggest they make unwarranted or casual statements. 4. Nobody is suggesting that in his private medical care of POTUS, Dr. Jackson is not exercising all due concern and care, or even that Jackson doesn't know perfectly well that the identified risk factors are alarming and need to be addressed. In fact, based on the disclosed prescription and care regimen, Jackson's professional assessment appears to be entirely consistent with the commentators in NYTimes, WaPo and elsewhere. Jackson is doing exactly what an MD would do with a patient with elevated risks. The comments are about the spin not the medical treatment. No pundit suggested 24 mg instead of 20 mg of Crestor. That would be inappropriate w/o examining the patient. But the RS comments are more about Dr. Jackson, and certainly are not about diagnosis -- per Goldwater rule. They're about risk and public statements, and the comments are framed as such. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 14:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * User:SPECIFICO Your attempts to distinguish between "diagnosis" and - what? general description of health without a specific diagnosis? - are hair splitting. Either we let outside doctors comment on the subject's health, or we don't. I generally oppose such commentary, but in this case I am willing to allow a general statement like the one proposed here. It's not clear what you are arguing for, if it isn't a general statement along those lines; we are certainly not going to say anything about "spin". If you wish a "tweak", please suggest your proposed wording in a separate section so that we can discuss this proposal here. --MelanieN (talk) 20:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * With the passage of even this brief period of time, my initial reaction that this is another case of RECENTISM and NOTNEWS seems to be confirmed. I strongly prefer dropping the whole thing from the bio and putting a 6 word sentence in the Presidency article -- Trump's physician said his 2018 POTUS physical revealed no significant problems. Then we can update yearly. That would be encyclopedic. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 20:50, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Why would you not put that sentence in the "Health" section? --MelanieN (talk) 21:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I would not include "who have not examined Trump" because it suggests their statements are not based on fact and professional judgment. As I've said, that would be the case if they offered a diagnosis and such diagnosis would be inappropriate. But what's attributed to them is a reaction to his "weight, lifestyle, and test results". And that information was fully available to them and their statements do not go beyond what is known to have been public. So the "not examined" is irrelevant and its only effect is to plant the suggestion -- for some, not all, of our readers -- that these armchair opinions are undue, untoward, unfounded and unprofessional. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 23:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Responding separately to the "splitting hairs" concern: There are infinite subtleties of language and presentation that can insinuate messages most editors here would not intend if they were explicitly stated. This kind of POV problem is old as the hills. It's not only a Wikipedia problem, but we must be especially careful about it on these politics articles where more direct forms of misinformation are easy to root out and expunge.  So unfortunately, rooting out hairs and POVs is part of our jobs here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs)


 * Oppose – Alternative opinions about Trump's health are a dime a dozen. Let's stick to what was stated by doctors who have examined him. — JFG talk 18:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - This is a noteworthy analysis of the results of the physical as reported by his physician and puts the information in a neutrally presented context. I will take a dozen prominent physicians over one who may not have any choice but to embellish his report about Trump's health.- MrX 🖋 21:45, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Support relevant and covered in reliable sources. If this were guy on the street opinions then they would be useless. However, these are knowledgeable experts looking at the data and reaching conclusions. This is in agreement with NPOV. I also agree with, word for word. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:27, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Guesses by armchair doctors should not be included. PackMecEng (talk) 19:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per MelanieN and RS coverage Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:03, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose The original version is better worded, but I am open to considering other wordings. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:19, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Probably the best proposal here, although I'm not entire convinced this routine medical needs any coverage. Assuming Trump's second annual physical will be as unremarkable as this one, I predict there entire paragraph will be dropped a year from now. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per JFG. <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">-- ψλ  ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 15:54, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Specific proposal 2

 * Thanks Mandruss. Please consider the following amendments, before we get lots of comments here

<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 22:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There's nothing wrong with alternative proposals. Can I support both? The main thing for me is to get the opposing view into the article; the precise form is secondary. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Support per WP:NPOV. While I said "one short sentence" multiple times in the discussion, this gives roughly equal space to each view. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per MelanieN below, who cited information I was not aware of. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Too detailed and wordy for what only one source says about one small event in Trumps life. Would support a more detailed version perhaps in another page or a page dedicated to the health of Trump. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:58, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per NPOV with a bit more information as to expert impartial review. Somehow if we say "excellent" we need to report that mainstream review was nowhere near "excellent". <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 23:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Absolutely oppose. We might be able to dispute “excellent health” but we should not say anything about heart disease. The very reference you cited - Huffpost - says at great length and detail that Gupta is wrong and that “Experts are siding with Dr. Jackson’s initial assessment of Trump’s heart health. The president’s test results do not reveal heart disease” and that Gupta is misinterpreting one test. Also that symptoms, not calcium levels, are the way to detect cardiac disease. So forget about cardiac disease and let’s talk about whether we should say something about “excellent health”. --MelanieN (talk) 23:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * P.S. Maron, the Stanford cardiologist, has expertise in this area, but I didn't hear him saying that Trump has cardiac disease, only that "God, no," he is not in excellent health. As for Topol, he is not qualified to make this diagnosis. He is a very highly regarded doctor, but he is a researcher, not a clinician, and the primary focus of his work has been in genetics. As for experts in general: a doctor who has seen test results is NOT in an equally good position to diagnose heart disease as someone who has examined the patient. Things like actually listening to the heart are still very basic to cardiology. --MelanieN (talk) 23:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Could you propose some synthesis or new alternative? That would be good. I think we may have jumped to specific language before parsing the appropriate details of the content. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 00:24, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * See . &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:28, 20 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose – Alternative opinions about Trump's health are a dime a dozen. Let's stick to what was stated by doctors who have examined him. — JFG talk 18:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above proposal (1A). Lorstaking (talk) 04:30, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Rreagan007 (talk) 02:51, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Specific proposal 1A wrap up
appears to have reached a consensus for inclusion; should it be added /Current consensus and the change made? Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:13, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I was thinking 52 was a little shaky for inclusion of controversial content, but your !vote today makes it 62 and that gets me there. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  15:19, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It's now 6-3..however would you specifically support 1A over the status quo? It looks a bit messy - can assume everyone who supported 1A supports 1 but then..maybe request a close at WP:ANRFC (but that would mean quite a bit of waiting, probably) Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:26, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * can assume everyone who supported 1A supports 1 - no, can't assume that at all, per MelanieN's comments in 1A. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  15:28, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I mean over the status quo? Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:42, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I would not support 1A over the status quo. The source doesn't say anything about prominent physicians making comments about his weight, but rather unnamed ones. 1A seems like an attempt to squish multiple details into one sentence, where as 1 was simple and clearly supported by the source. I am not sure if anyone would support this but I think a dedicated article on his health could be best, as we could then include detailed and clear mention of his health from a multitude of sources. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:33, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I've just thrown my support behind 1A as well, although I'd rather remove all mention of the unremarkable physical. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:35, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 73, then. That's adequate participation and sufficient margin. Barring RfC I say we call it a consensus and move on. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  15:38, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd agree on that. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:39, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Well how about one opinion from the Oppose side., is this a consensus? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  15:44, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If we got rid of the bit about the weight, then that would be enough for me to move from oppose to support. Still think that a dedicated article could be best, but this is a comprise that I would be willing to make right now. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:47, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That is not the relevant question at this juncture. You're effectively making Specific proposal 3 and that would require more discussion and more !voting. The question is: Assuming you stay at Oppose, is the current 73 a consensus for 1A in your view? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  15:50, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That would be a narrow consensus in my view, but I can only speak for myself and not or . --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:54, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. We don't need unanimous agreement that there is a consensus, I merely wanted to make sure our opinion wasn't being unduly influenced by our position. Most editors wouldn't have gone even that far. Time to implement the consensus. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  15:58, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Beat ya to it:); basically my thoughts yeah Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:01, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Consensus or not?
Just noticed this after the discussion was closed. I don't think that proposal 1A has strong enough support (7-4) to be included in the consensus list. More details at User talk:Mandruss/Archive 6. — JFG talk 14:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Sigh. 7-4 is a ratio of 1.75:1. Put another way, there are nearly 43% more editors supporting proposal 1A. By weight of argument and number in support, this is a consensus by any reasonable definition. Is this proposed language really so objectionable that you want to stand in the way of a pretty obvious consensus for approval? -- Scjessey (talk) 14:56, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Even if we just look at the numbers, 7-4 in an informal survey is a weak consensus. When we read the arguments in the discussion, the consensus looks even weaker, with several commenters torn between this wording, a stronger one, a weaker one, or outright removal. We have reserved the "current consensus" items for much stronger "slam-dunk" surveys, and for broader RfC-adjudicated discussions. The way forward is either more discussion to hammer out a stronger consensus among "regulars", or an RfC to gather more eyeballs. — JFG talk 16:02, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I believe you are trying to impose a harder standard of "consensus" because you disagree with the result of the discussion. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:30, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The consensus seems pretty strong to me. The only solid oppose was from Emir of Wikipedia. The other opposes cited dimes a dozen and armchair doctors (?), which is not really a fair representation of the sources.- MrX 🖋 17:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn’t take part in this discussion as I’m not convinced any mention of the physical warrants inclusion. However, as it is to be included, I think prop 1A is the best of the options. O3000 (talk) 17:58, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * My proposal is best and it only gets more obvious with time. Remove this -- it's recentism, notnews, etc. He's lived 70 years. We'd need 7 articles to detail all the times he came out of a physical on two feet. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 20:21, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I don't even personally care that much about the text. I'm just noticing that this particular discussion fell short of the usual standard to cement a "current consensus" item. — JFG talk 20:24, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * JFG has clarified that he feels less strongly about the close and consensus than about the list entry. He is correct that this consensus is weaker than what we have traditionally included in the list; otherwise we would have a hundred entries by now. In hindsight I think my thinking was unconsciously influenced by a comment I made 9 days ago. I would support keeping the close and the article change, and losing the list entry. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:27, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * A better alternative would be to reopen the thread. Ask folks like me for a simple up or down on the 1A language, and you'll end up with clear consensus that you can ask somebody to close. Either that or call it consensus straight off. It's just kicking the can otherwise, and it's buying a problem in the future, imo. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 23:52, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The proposal was up for over 8 days. If you feel more participation is needed, start an RfC. That wouldn't guarantee inclusion in the list by any means, as an RfC could easily produce an equally weak consensus or none at all. As I said, we have not included borderline consensuses in the list and I feel it's a bad idea to start now. The strength calculation considers not only margin but also amount of participation (it's also supposed to include strength of arguments, but as I've said I've never seen anything more than a head count when there's no clear answer in policy). &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think implementing the change, but not listing it at the top of this page as "consensus", is a good outcome. Basically we had a local consensus for it for now, but not an overpowering enough consensus to list it in the "this is the way it's supposed to be" section. In other words, future discussion could well produce a different outcome without making a federal case out of it.--MelanieN (talk) 00:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I haven't edited much at this article, and its pretty clear I don't understand what that list is about, if an RfC outcome might not be included and an RfC cannot change those consensus texts. At any rate, we'll see how long this lasts before somebody tries to remove the NPOV commentary from the press coverage. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 00:20, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If that happens, it might call for an RfC in which we could hope for a consensus strong enough to add to the list. But even list items are subject to WP:CCC; the only real differences are the 1RR exemption (prior talk page consensus required) and easy access to the supporting discussion(s). And the list items rightly carry more weight precisely because they are the strongest consensuses. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:25, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe all this warrants some explanation at the top of list, for the uninitiated? The obvious downside being that the more prose there is, the more likely none of it will be read. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  12:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "This is a list of the strongest consensuses and, as such, they carry more weight than others. Like any consensus, they are subject to consensus can change (except for its proposal-by-editing clause), but they will generally be more difficult to change than consensuses not listed here." &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  12:19, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need to spell out inclusion criteria in excruciating details; there are plenty enough warnings which make the article already quite intimidating to newcomers. Common sense should rule. The warning notice when you edit the consensus list is clear enough imo. — JFG talk 15:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Well ok, but that notice says nothing about selectivity; in fact it implies no selectivity. "Editors may only edit this page if there is consensus to do so, established by discussion." And the explanation isn't just for editors updating the list anyway. (My opinion of common sense can be found here, as I've found it to vary wildly between individuals. Just yesterday an editor schooled me on what they called common sense, which was later shown to be a small-minority opinion, and that's more the rule than the exception.) &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  16:55, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Restoring removal of RS DUE WEIGHT health information
The health section seems to have been degraded since we began discussing the improvements in the preceding topic here. In particular, the word "excellent" which most RS put in quotes to attribute it to the examining MD, have been removed with the false edit summary that they are "scare quotes". Not. Also, the information from the examining MD that POTUS' elevated cholesterol was not adequately managed by his dosage of Crestor and that the physician is increasing the dosage has been removed. Most impartial physicians who have reviewed the publicly available record have stated that POTUS is significantly overweight and that his high cholesterol, weight, belly fat, diet, and lack of exercise point to a diagnosis of early stage heart disease. We will need to find the proper way to incorporate that information in the article, but to remove the physician's own statements about "excellent" health and about his upping POTUS' meds can't help us here. Does anyone object to reinstating the statin sentence and the "excellent" quotes, per RS? There are abundant RS for the statin dosage, e.g. [ https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/17/us/politics/trump-physical-heart-health-cholesterol.html] <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 18:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with the removal of quotes around excellent; that's what the man said, we are paraphrasing, quotation marks around that one word are inappropriate. (So to be clear, I object to restoring them.) And I don't think we should create a "rebuttal section", quoting outside physicians in attempts to contradict the physician who examined him. At most we might include one comment, which Dr. Gupta expressed well in the Q&A section (sorry, don't have a link right now, paraphrasing): "How can a man who is overweight, has high cholesterol, eats a poor diet, and doesn't exercise be described as being in excellent health?" I would strongly oppose quoting anyone who thinks they can remote-diagnose heart disease. This has been our position here through several years: we do not cite "armchair" medical diagnoses by people who did not actually examine the patient. --MelanieN (talk) 21:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * P.S. I am ok with restoring the information that he increased the statin dose. That's fairly routine, but it comes from the doctor who examined him, so it is of far more credibility than outside commentary. --MelanieN (talk) 23:07, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Maron and Topol's comments are not armchair diagnoses, as I said above. You don't have to touch the patient to say whether a set of test results suggest "excellent health", which were Jackson's words. I haven't proposed saying word one about heart disease, only that these doctors strongly dispute the "excellent health" characterization based on the test results. And, for organization's sake, I wish you'd put your response in the subsection where that is being discussed. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Mandruss, you didn't mention heart disease, but SPECIFICO did, and that's who I was replying to. I'll copy the relevant parts of my comments into the subsection above, if I can figure out which that is; there are an awful lot of conversations going on here about the same subject. --MelanieN (talk) 23:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, SPECIFICO and every distinguished heart specialist who's been consulted by the most reliable of mainstream sources. Jackson said his heart health is "excellent" and the quotes are used by the RS citations, they were not added for any inappropriate effect on WP. As Mandrus has clearly explained, the doctor's unprecedented and over the top press briefing went beyond his professional assessment. The Dana Milbank WaPo piece summarizes this very well. It is not armchair diagnosis, it's not repeating preposterous inflated talking points that the White House would like everyone to take at face value. As some have pointed out, the language was remarkably similar to the famed Dr. Bornstein fiasco during the campaign.  <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 00:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't know where in all this mass of discussion to put this, so I'll just say it here: About the cognitive screening exam: “perfect score” as we once had is a misnomer. The exam is designed so that EVERY normally functioning person is supposed to achieve a perfect score. The appropriate description would be that he “passed”. I see that’s what we now have in the article and it should stay. --MelanieN (talk) 00:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I'd be fine with leaving the entire 2018 exam bit out of the article. What I think we need to avoid is repeating and giving a platform for staged promotional narratives where RS identify them as such. Unless POTUS suffers a health crisis within the next year or two, I am sure this 2018 bit will not be in this article in 5 years and I see no reason why it should be in here now. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 00:32, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * SPECIFICO, please spare us your commentary about “flattery and sycophantic bluster” and “promotional presentation” (earlier) and “preposterous inflated talking points” and “staged promotional narratives” (now). We get it: you don’t believe Dr. Jackson, you don't believe anything the White House says, and you want the article to say so. So now let’s stick to sources and WP policies. One such policy is WP:NOTFORUM. --MelanieN (talk) 00:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Deep breath, MelanieN. Please do not miscast this as a personal issue. I am citing many RS over and over and many policy considerations. I'd appreciate it if you'd respond instead to what I stated -- what do you think of omitting this 2018 exam WP:NOTNEWS recentism bit entirely? <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 00:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I very much doubt whether the comments I quoted just now were quotes from Reliable Sources. No, to answer your question, I don't think we should omit this information. It has gotten enough coverage to need a paragraph per WP:WEIGHT. --MelanieN (talk) 00:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * What about recentism and notnews? Lots of things get this much coverage and never make it into WP articles, don't they? Dana Milbank asks "is the doctor OK?" That's pretty strong stuff from a very moderate mainstream view. "staged promotional narratives" should not be controversial about any politician or public figure. WP editors need to know that. It may have come up a lot with this adminsitration because so many of the narratives have turned out to be false rather than just artfully colored. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 01:05, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Please drop the stick. Looks like Trump is in better health than most Americans his age, whether commenters like it or not. — JFG talk 18:32, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposal: Move recent exam to the Presidency article
Let's omit I see the uneventful annual physical as entirely appropriate subject matter for the Presidency of Donald Trump article. All recent presidents get these physicals with some sort of public statement, and in that context this one attracted at least the standard level of attention due to the unfortunate excitement surrounding Wolff's highly promoted book. But in Wikipedia biographies, I don't see references to annual checkups. Not unless they produce real news of disease or disability, which is not the case here. The first two paragraphs of the current Health section content on this article give our readers noteworthy facts we might see in any biography article. The annual checkup does not. It's just another goofy artifact of the current media environment and the unfortunate timing surrounding the unverified denigration of POTUS in Michael Wolff's booktour. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 16:27, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No oppose per proposer, but it would move the unresolved neutrality issue to that article. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  17:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose We have a "health" section. We mention the report from his private physician, issued during the primary, in that section. I can't see any justification for not listing the report from his current (White House) physician in the same place. It's true that we haven't always mentioned the annual physical for other presidents, but their annual physicals have not received this much WP:WEIGHT of coverage. --MelanieN (talk) 20:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Support omission - A bad physical would be noteworthy, but an unremarkable one like this one is not. If this is considered notable, then the now-deleted "girther movement" article should be too, since many of the sources are the same. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:16, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * For this patient, it's noteworthy that it's unremarkable. And note the 3 competing proposals to add the opposing medical opinion, above. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:50, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - A medical exam is about the person not the presidency. This one was notable for the inclusion of a mental cognitive test.PackMecEng (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it drew media attention (briefly) because the physician publicized the cognitive screening. Of all the BLPs of 70+ year olds, how many discuss the fact that they did not fail a simple screening? Those who fail get treated for senility and we still don't include it in their BLPs unless there's some additional effect. Would you think the cognitive screening was encyclopedic content for any of hundreds of living septugenarian articles? I fully accept your reasoning with respect to the Presiency article, but not the personal bio. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 21:50, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * How many received over a years worth of daily coverage regarding their mental health? Then went and specifically took a mental health test from Obama's doctor to disprove those accusations. Seems like everyone was happy to include negative mental health information based on armchair doctors and when a real report comes out from someone that has been with him for a long time comes out to disprove it, it is no longer notable. PackMecEng (talk) 22:07, 20 January 2018 (UTC) Just to make clear, I do not mean you specifically comrade SPECIFICO. PackMecEng (talk) 22:13, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * everyone was happy to include negative mental health information based on armchair doctors - #21 seems to contradict that statement. &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  22:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yup, luckily level heads prevailed. PackMecEng (talk) 22:13, 20 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Support - A routine physical, with results that are only surprising in that they were reported as representative of "excellent health", is not significant enough to include in a prominent bio.- MrX 🖋 21:51, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Notable aspect of Trump throughout his life.. If this is moved it should be moved to some dedicated article about the health of Trump. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you mean to say that annual "no problems" updates have been put in this article since it first appeared? We already have the noteworthy health information in the first 2 paragraphs. What biographical information does the recent press briefing add to that? <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 23:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Support I think that suspicions about Trump's mental competence are being omitted anyway (?) in which case there is no point in including this. zzz (talk) 23:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Support moving to Presidency article. This is only relevant because Trump is president, otherwise I strongly doubt the press would be covering his health. Also, numbers of prominent physicians would not be commenting on the data and challenging his "excellent health" diagnosis if he wasn't president. So, yes this belongs in the Presidency article more than here. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Health reports are about the person, not their presidency. — JFG talk 23:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It really would be more helpful if you would assess the pros and cons of the move as set forth by other users in this thread. How's Bill Gates' liver function? Murdoch's cholesterol? <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 00:51, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Glad you asked. If there was anything widely reported by RS about Bill Gates' liver function, I very much believe it would fit in our Bill Gates article, not in Microsoft or in Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. — JFG talk 01:12, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Sexual misconduct allegations in the lead
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #EDEAFF; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the lead include mention of the allegations of sexual misconduct on Trump's part? --Tataral (talk) 08:02, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

This would summarize content already in the article body, in this subsection.

If yes, I tentatively propose the wording "Since 2016, about 15 women have accused him of previous sexual misconduct, which he denied", but I would like to note that the exact wording shouldn't be considered to be set in stone, and that we might need to adjust it as things develop.

If you agree in principle with the proposal to include mention of the allegations but do not support the exact wording proposed above, you may support the proposal but indicate that you don't support the exact wording proposed – if necessary we will have a new discussion or RfC about the exact wording.

Survey: Sexual misconduct allegations in the lead
Yes include in the lead No do not include in the lead


 * Yes: The sexual misconduct allegations against Donald Trump were the most widely covered issue in reliable sources during the presidential election. The issue continues to receive extensive coverage in reliable sources, more than a full year later. Its importance is highlighted by the fact that the coverage of the allegations against Trump is linked to a broader discussion of sexual misconduct in society. For examples of recent sources, I refer to the previous discussion we had on this. During his presidential term so far, the sexual misconduct allegations are, next to the Russia issue, clearly the single most covered issue related to Trump in reliable sources, possibly the most covered issue.′
 * As a rule of thumb, any issue worthy of an in-depth stand-alone article should be considered notable enough for at least a brief mention in the lead section of the main article on the relevant subject. The misconduct allegations have such an in-depth stand-alone article, Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations. --Tataral (talk) 08:02, 4 January 2018 (UTC)


 * No. Insignificant in relation to the rest of activities. Should he face impeachment or significant legal action this may be different. RfC is not neutrally worded.Icewhiz (talk) 13:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * RfC is not neutrally worded. Fixed after discussion. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  16:02, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * i'd say it's pretty significant since he admitted it on audio. -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 22:10, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes to the idea, but no to the proposed wording. It is very well reported that Trump has been accused by multiple people on multiple occasions, but the dating and number of accusations I don't think are appropriate. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes to the idea, but no to the proposed wording (yes, there's an echo in here). I'm uncomfortable with the lede having things like "about 15 women" in it, because it sounds vague. My preferred text would be something like this: "Trump has been credibly accused of sexual misconduct, which he has denied." I use "credibly" because the Access Hollywood tape has him admitting it. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:45, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No As with my comments regarding Woody Allen and Al Franken's (pre-resignation) ledes, allegations should have some palpable effect on the subject's career before it gets entered into the lede. The similar RfC for Al Franken seemed to be headed in to a similar conclusion until his resignation made it redundant. Per WP:LEAD, the introduction should be a short and simple summary of why he is notable. There's no denying that the allegations have received coverage but it's hard to believe that his social media behavior, a daily topic amongst all print and television media, doesn't get more. We even have a lengthy article about that behavior too (Donald Trump on social media) but it doesn't belong in the lede either. There's also the WP:WEIGHT issue; there's very little about the allegations in this article, almost all of the relevant section deals with the Billy Bush tape. We should revisit this if something does happen, which ended up being the case with Franken.LM2000 (talk) 15:53, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * LM2000, WEIGHT?? Donald Trump Access Hollywood tape and Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations creates enormous weight. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * We can always add the mention of social media later on, but I doubt that people would accept it if this RfC fails. Just to avoid any possible misunderstandings or confusion, I am not saying that we should say yes to this so that people are not dissuaded from future RfC's but just that we should not keep information out of the lead just because we have not decided to yet put other information into the lead. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) No unless it becomes a bigger issue in his life for some other reason, for example a high profile lawsuit. These allegations have simply not impacted him or his biography in a big way. They could be important in the biography of someone who has fewer reasons to be notable, but Trump's biography is so full of notable things that the sexual allegations are not currently worthy of inclusion in the lede. He's been described as "Teflon", i.e., these accusations have failed to stick. And I disagree with your assertion that these allegations are the second-most covered issue related to Trump. How about his finances and refusal to release his tax returns? How about his popularity with, and empowering of, white nationalists? Those things are not in the lede. We have discussed this before; consensus was to include the allegations in the text but not the lede; that's still my opinion. --MelanieN (talk) 16:17, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * P.S. I should add that if anything, these allegations are LESS worthy of inclusion now, a year into his very eventful presidency, than they were when we previously reached consensus not to include them. --MelanieN (talk) 16:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The passage of time makes these multiple, credible accusations no less ghastly. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:48, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe not, but it adds other information with a higher-priority claim to inclusion in the lede. --MelanieN (talk) 17:40, 4 January 2018 (UTC)


 * No. He is innocent until proven guilty, and this would be a BLP violation.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * (Responses moved to Discussion.) &#8213; Mandruss &#9742;  08:18, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


 * No The allegations fail weight. PackMecEng (talk) 17:06, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * PackMecEng, WEIGHT?? Donald Trump Access Hollywood tape and Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations creates enormous weight. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Not so much actually given his overall life and notability. PackMecEng (talk) 03:32, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * But enough for short mention in the lead. Keep in mind that we aren't just talking about some past events, but an ever-present and unresolved series of accusations, IOW Justice delayed is justice denied. When you see a picture of him, imagine a bucket about to be poured over his head. It's in the picture all the time, until this gets resolved in a court of law. It's a weighty matter. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It's undue weight to say that a dude has bragged about "grabbing [women] by the pussy" when he said it? A lad insane  <small style="color:#6C2EA2">talk  03:44, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:WEIGHT is not about moral judgments and nobody here is making a moral judgment argument. At issue (mainly) is amount of RS coverage, and importance relative to the rest of Trump's life. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  04:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I've seen plenty of coverage, but I tend more toward liberal news media, maybe they cover that more. A lad insane  <small style="color:#6C2EA2">talk  04:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)


 * No per MelanieN.- MrX 17:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No per LM200. Unless Trump is forced to resign because of them, the allegations do not belong on the lede. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 02:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. In fact, we have no other choice but to do it without violating LEAD and NPOV. It certainly has the weight (enough for at least two sub-articles), and since it deserves its own section (and articles), it should be mentioned. One sentence may be enough. Failure to mention is a serious multiple-policy violation. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:20, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No. I think it violates both WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. MB298 (talk) 03:58, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No I love that the two prior votes are Yes/No citing violation of the same policy. I think a clearer read is WP:PROPORTION. If he had materialized from the ether in 2015, this goes in the lede as proportional. But DT has been a nationally known figure for 35 years; his is a long and meandering story. I would compare and contrast Clinton, whose lede mentions Lewinsky (because of impeachment) but not Jones/Flowers despite them being huge players in his story. For the record, I am a DT hater. GCG (talk) 16:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC)


 * No POV, unproven and unimportant in relation to such things as policy and accomplishments.  Besides, we now know that some women were paid to claim sexual misconduct by Trump.Phmoreno (talk) 18:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Who's "we"? I don't know that, and I don't see it at Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations. Got a solid RS link or a pointer to within that article? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:06, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If I had to guess they probably mean this and this. People offered money for victims to come forward and the thought was that some might be false just to get the money. Kind of shady but so far no proof that any made it up for the money. PackMecEng (talk) 19:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Presenting unproven allegations as fact in the same breath (!vote) as opposing content about allegations because they're unproven. Nice. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC)


 * No per MelanieN. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 19:53, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No I don't give a rat's ass if we have this discussion every week of every month, until something new comes up I'm going to stick by a big fat NO. Hopefully all of the people pushing this rubbish crap migrate to RationalWiki. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 21:35, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No per MelanieN and others. I also note in response to Bull TomKat is at least one recent case of a media frenzy topic which became in time a huge standalone article and is now a much shortened redirect. Cruise and Rrump are both individuals who are in the constant spotlight and could theoretically have dozens or hundreds of articles about them based on news coverage alone. But that is one of the reasons wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. John Carter (talk) 21:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes per Tataral and BullRangifer etc. The lead is currently short, so there is no problem adding this along with the other issues mentioned by MelanieN. zzz (talk) 08:45, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes; the coverage is and was overwhelming to the point where it seems silly to say that it is WP:UNDUE. The WP:NPOV arguments - and, even more vacantly, the argument that some editors don't find the accusations credible - are specious because our job is simply to report what that overwhelming coverage says; the fact that the accusations exist is well-cited, and the overwhelming waves of coverage surrounding them (combined with continued coverage even today) shows that they are obviously WP:DUE.  Most of the !votes to omit therefore seem to be a variation on WP:IDONTLIKEIT - people who recognize that it is well-cited, recognize the heavy coverage, but who feel that the coverage itself is biased or undue or untrustworthy or something along those lines.  But those are not valid arguments, and omitting such an otherwise obviously notable aspect of the topic from the lead would be an unequivocal WP:NPOV violation itself. --Aquillion (talk) 09:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Not taking a position (yet), but WP:BALASP ≠ WP:IDONTLIKEIT. And I think at least some of the UNDUE !votes are actually BALASP !votes with the wrong shortcutthey are both parts of NPOVand some people are making BALASP-like arguments without citing it (people in both groups might wish to update their !votes for clarity). Also note that PROPORTION, cited above, is a helpful (not) alias for BALASP. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  09:55, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


 * No, not in the lead - per WP:BLP guidance to write conservatively and it has not had such a significant impact on his life to suit WP:LEAD. Mostly it seems an election event, now seeing a bit of post-Weinstein interest but nothing new has happened.  Also, I would suggest 'numerous' in the sectionn of the article rather than a specific numbering as the cites say 15 and 17 and 19, and the individuals do not match and not all are current.  Markbassett (talk) 20:03, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, include rape allegations in the introduction. After discussion on Jimbotalk and reflection. Trump's personality is essential to convey accurately. EllenCT (talk) 15:26, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This RfC has nothing to do with any rape allegations. It's about whether to summarize with one sentence the content at Donald Trump. The word rape does not occur there, and none of the allegations there approach rape. You may wish to revise (or re-evaluate) your !vote. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  16:25, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The word "rape" currently occurs ten times in Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations. Those accusations should be summarized in the lead of the main article. EllenCT (talk) 16:40, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Look a little deeper. The only rape allegation at that article is one Ivana made during their messy divorce, which she has since pretty much disavowed. It is considered so insignificant that it didn't make it into this article. It constitutes maybe 5% of what we would be summarizing in the one sentence here, if that, so the bolded part of your !vote simply misstates the question. Worse, it makes me wonder whether you fully understand the question. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  10:49, Today (UTC−6)
 * ,, and should also be summarized here and in the WP:SUMMARY articles. EllenCT (talk) 17:22, 7 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes per BullRangifer. If it's important enough to justify an entire article here, then WP:LEAD demands inclusion.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 16:43, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "If it's important enough to justify an entire article here, then WP:LEAD demands inclusion." Which policy or guideline says that? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:30, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The lead is, by definition, the summary of the most important topics in an article. A topic significant enough to justify a lengthy article of its own makes it one of the most important topics in that article.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 17:55, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No It's WP:UNDUE weight. The accusations were a minor scandal and failed to make any significant impact.  It's in the body of the article where it should be. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:34, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * ?? Some of these accusations have been around for years. They just resurfaced and a few more women came forward. Their due weight is not based on the amount of footage in this article (a section required to be left behind when spinning off a large amount of material), but on the at least two sub-articles on the subject. There is abundant weight. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:25, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:Weight isn't determined by its prevalence in other articles (or popularity among Wikipedia editors), but its prevalence in third-party reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:09, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The specific number and nature of extant articles on a current events type topic like this one will almost always be both comparatively incomplete and somewhat biased based on the amount of effort and time any individual editor is willing to expend on it. Also, as I think most of us know, it would certainly be possible to try to game the system by such unbalanced spinout articles by individual editors or groups of editors, knowingly or unknowingly. John Carter (talk) 22:32, 8 January 2018 (UTC)


 * No. Tough decisions must be made. There simply isn't the real estate for anything on this subject. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No - Innocent until proven guilty as Zigzig20s has said. It is pure conjecture and gossip. I'm sure many Wikipedians would like to see that installed into the President Trump Wikipedia article solely to discredit him, no doubt it will happen sooner or later. ThePlane11 (talk) 06:02, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You seem unaware that policy-free !votes are ignored by the closer and therefore have no effect on the outcome. Please cite specific parts of Wikipedia policy to support your !vote. As stated above multiple times, policy specifically precludes "innocent until proven guilty" reasoning for public figures. Further, related content is already installed into the President Trump Wikipedia article, in this subsection, and there is no proposal to remove it, so you also seem to have missed the whole point of this RfC. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  09:14, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is not about avoiding negative content, and it seems to me we go a little too far in trying to avoid the appearance of anti-Trump bias. Of the 408 words in the lead, the following might be said to be Trump-negative: "...many of his public statements were controversial or false ... first without prior military or government service ... despite getting less of the popular vote ... election and policies have sparked numerous protests." I don't think that proportion fairly represents the body of reliable sources on Trump. He is objectively one of the two most controversial U.S. presidents since Nixon, Clinton being the other, and our current lead does not reflect that reality. It might as well be talking about Eisenhower. And Trump has been extremely controversial his entire life. I'm not terribly interested in "but what about issues X and Y" reasoning for the purpose of this RfC, as we could still be debating such things when Trump leaves office. Considering the lead's current length relative to the length of the article, there is room to add other things to the lead if they are deemed to have equal or greater importance. That does not need to further complicate this already complicated question in my view. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  04:56, 10 January 2018 (UTC) As for why "the news reports it", you are challenging the foundation of Wikipedia editing, reliable sources. In this case, that's necessarily mostly the news media. Where in policy does it say we can blithely dismiss this much RS because of our personal opinions about why certain things are reported? That is not a rhetorical question; if such policy exists I want to learn about it. I completely understand that this kind of debate is largely pointless, especially this late in an RfC. You're not going to change your mind, and my rebuttal will have zero effect on the close. But I couldn't help myself. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  08:33, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. Close question. For precedent I checked out Warren G. Harding, whose dalliances are mentioned in the lead section. In Trump's case, his sexual behavior practically sank his candidacy. While a close question, not a slam dunk, I would favor yes.  Coretheapple (talk) 00:46, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No - For now. Inclusion would give WP:UNDUE weight and they are of course allegations. Mention is the body is adequate. Meatsgains (talk) 03:14, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes - There is ample policy on both sides of this issue, and no way to weigh it except by gut feel. My gut feel is as follows.
 * Yes - According to WP:LEAD, the lead should "summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies". With Trump, this is difficult since he has so many controversies.  So I guess we are to determine the most prominent ones that should be summarized in the lead.  But it can be argued that the sexual misconduct allegations is the most prominent of his controversies.  This was a big part of the campaign coverage, so much so that many in the media felt his campaign was over when the access hollywood tape came out.JamesRoberts (talk) 02:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes per Mandruss. I think adding would just be due, but it is complicated. There are other critical stuff I'd like to add to the lead; but I think this should be there, and there is room for it. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:13, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes per WP:Weight. Long term and continued coverage in WP:RS. Casprings (talk) 03:43, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes He admitted such behavior and it was even caught on audio. As the POTUS, it is highly notable and personally, I think it should be included regardless of the outcome of this RFC. His behavior is unprecedented and the effect on the integrity of the office is too. -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 22:20, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No – Contrary to other recent cases (Weinstein, Cosby, O'Reilly, etc.), the sexual impropriety allegations against Trump did not make a dent in his life, despite intense scrutiny. Therefore they have undue weight for the lead of his main bio. We've had this discussion before, and it's fine to discuss it again whenever the press takes renewed interest in the topic. WP:Consensus can change, but I doubt it will today. — JFG talk 22:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes Sexual misconduct is a very vague term in light of recent releases of information he had an affair it should be in the lead though I would support rewording it "transgressions"RoslinGenetics (talk) 20:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No Simply put, it's innocent until proven guilty. Something that Trump hasn't been proven guilty of shouldn't be put in the lead. ParaNerd023 (talk) 00:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No This is an encyclopedia article, not a tabloid. If he gets convicted of sexual misconduct in a court of law, then it will be worthy of inclusion is the lead. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:36, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes Roy Moore's article includes allegations of sexual misconduct in the lead, and unlike Trump, Moore isn't on tape admitting to the behavior he's been accused of. It is also in the lead of John Conyers article, despite the fact that the accusations Conyers faced were less serious than those Trump has faced. Wikipedia should not take the position that Trump's electoral victory renders irrelevant credible accusations of sexual misconduct by more than a dozen women.Kiernanmc (talk) 04:26, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No Per GCG and Phmoreno. Display name 99 (talk) 20:58, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes there's an entire article about it. If there's enough to justify an entire article about it, how can anyone justify not putting a mention in the lead of the article of the person who's the focus of that coverage? Amsgearing (talk) 17:16, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No Not everything can be about sex and there is more important things to mention in the lead. It is not mentioned in Bill Clinton or John F. Kennedy although everyone knows there is stuff there. I wouldn't even say that the sexual allegation are the most important allegations at all. There has been a lot of allegation regarding the business practices as well. Apart from being the right thing to do, including it would make it even harder to take Wikipedia seriously.--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 00:24, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes: This is well covered, well cited, and a large issue that still gets attention about Trump for over a year and including to this day. ContentEditman (talk) 01:37, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No Per MelanieN. <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">-- ψλ  ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 02:39, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes -- a defining characteristic & per WP:WEIGHT. Long-term and continued coverage in RS. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:56, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No, until something substantial comes of one of these allegations, I believe it would be putting undue weight on the subject to put it in the lead. AdA&D  is not watching @ 06:00, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No - How can we claim inclusion is due? For the election it didn't impact? For the accused who hasn't been affected? For the accused who has dozens of more notable things to discuss? The news reports it because it has readers (and apparently quite a few Wikipedians) wanting more; Wikipedia, however, is not the news and it is time we stop trying to be it.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:53, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * How do you know the election wasn't impacted? It's quite possible to have a significant impact without costing him the election. How do you know the allegations didn't cost him the popular vote? Conversely, if he had lost the election, how would we know it was because of these allegations? Short of solid polling which I don't think exists, there is no way to make an "election impact" argument either way.
 * y'know, I understand you completely..when you know the rebuttal is pointless but are frustrated about people just ignoring RS Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:41, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes Mandruss I can tell by your seven other attempts at rebutting editors that you can't help yourself. We actually have more coverage in RS over a longer period for Trump's hair so that is obviously lede worthy too, right? We, of course, cannot "blithely dismiss this much RS".TheGracefulSlick (talk) 09:20, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * We actually have more coverage in RS over a longer period for Trump's hair - I don't believe that's a true statement about what we normally consider RS. Not to mention that bad-hair-to-sexual-misconduct-allegations is a ridiculous comparison. Now, since you're attempting to make this personal, this will be my last reply to you and you're welcome to the last word if you want it. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  09:44, 28 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Probably no - Allegations as such are probably always going to be on thin ice re: BLP. And the arguments about about available real estate in the article are convincing. The popularity and public discussion regarding the me too movement does make this seem particularly poignant, but that gets into tricky territory in policing our own perspectives re: WP:RECENTISM. Overall, even if one were to consider only allegations of all types (not just sexual misconduct), there are probably enough to fill up full pages, and it's not clear why this should be singularly historically more impacting than, for example, allegations of money laundering.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk   14:47, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Discussion: Sexual misconduct allegations in the lead
The background section just seems to be your rationale and so should be part of your "yes" !vote Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:11, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see why. The background section is one particular's editor's proposal (or rationale for the proposal which is the subject of the RfC) which other editors are free to agree or disagree with. It's not supposed to be "neutral". In any event, the particular structure of the RfC was discussed for almost a month (with a draft found here User:Mandruss/sandbox) before it was started with no objection to that. --Tataral (talk) 12:38, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * All of the text preceding the first recognizable signature is copied to the RfC listings. That part should be a concise and neutral statement of the question or proposal. I've taken the liberty of copying your signature above and the listings should be updated by the bot within an hour. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  13:13, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * After reviewing WP:RFC and the essay WP:WRFC, I think this is a case where common practice has diverged from the guidelines. As I'm philosophically opposed to that, I now agree that your rationale should be moved to your !vote. Apologies for the bad steer. Although not technically necessary, I would add another sig following your instructions. When this is resolved, this discussion can be collapsed as "Process discussion". &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  14:01, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yup, that's why I was asking him to move it. Doesn't make sense to privilege one rationale to appear at the top. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * So in your view a 3-word "Support as proposer" !vote would be improper in an RfC? It requires that the proposer's rationale has been previously stated; otherwise it's a vote, not a !vote. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  14:29, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, would be improper I think, better to have the rationale with the !vote. I think this is mostly needed when it is formatted like this, with a seperate sections for the survey and what not. Could confuse/mislead people (inexperienced users etc) to have that there. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:48, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you're saying after the first sentence, but I'll read that as a "yes". I have no problem with that, but it confirms that "common practice has diverged from the guidelines." I see "Support as proposer" all the time, including from many very experienced editors. The RfC Reform Movement starts here. ;) &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  14:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I can't say I've seen a lot of "support as proposer" !votes in RfCs. TONS of them in AfDs, however. What bugs me the most is how RfCs are now being used at the first introduction of an idea, rather than as a way to resolve deadlocks, etc. This is particularly a problem in politics-related articles. Why wasn't this proposal introduced in "regular order" (or whatever you want to call it)? -- Scjessey (talk) 15:01, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Huh? This has been discussed multiple times before (recently too), with a mixed response. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * more offtopic stuff but people also forget that there's no requirement for RfCs to run 30 days and so much more.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Scjessey, there is some discussion still on this page, and it's been discussed before. I think experience tells us that RfCs are more likely to produce a clear consensus than open discussion, anyway. If we go straight to RfC, we're just saving a ton of time in many cases. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  15:11, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that is a function of how polarized editors have become. More or less every discussion in the US politics topic is now a form of dispute resolution. This is a relatively new development - RfC's were considered one of the last resorts as recently as a couple of years ago. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm quite ok with new developments. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  15:21, 4 January 2018 (UTC)


 * We have had endless discussions on this issue, including most recently nearly a full month of discussion on whether to have an RfC. I see that some people are now "voting" against the tentatively proposed wording. That's ok, but it's a pity that they didn't weigh in in the previous discussion during the last month that focused particularly on the proposed wording in the upcoming RfC. --Tataral (talk) 15:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

(The following !vote and responses were copied/moved from Survey.) &#8213; Mandruss &#9742;  08:18, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No. He is innocent until proven guilty, and this would be a BLP violation.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * In light of #MeToo and Trump's comments about Hillary Clinton, the "innocent until proven guilty" defense looks completely ridiculous. Besides, reliably-sourced information presented in the right weight would not be a BLP-violation. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:48, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Zigzig20s, you've been here long enough to know there is no violation of BLP. There is abundant RS sourcing to document that these allegations exist. That's all we're doing. All other articles for high profile men with such allegations include mention in the lead. Guilt or innocence is totally irrelevant. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:25, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Absent specific policy links, I agree with Scjessey and BullRangifer. We don't get to invent our own inclusion criteria and slap policy acronyms on them. I would expect a competent closer to discount that !vote completely. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  04:49, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Who? It is in Bill Clinton's lede because he admitted it. President Trump did no such thing, and it is pure gossip. Anybody can accuse anybody of anything anytime. If the allegations are ever proven to be true, there would still be an issue of weight. Clinton's sexual misconduct led to his near impeachment, yet there is only one sentence buried in the middle of a very long paragraph. It would be totally undue in President Trump's lede, especially now.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * this is ridiculous. you're being willfully ignorant. He admitted such behavior and it was even caught on audio. -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 22:14, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * it is pure gossip. Pure gossip is somebody anonymously starting a rumor on the internet. Pure gossip might be one woman going public with allegations, pinning a target to her own back and adding a ton of stress to her previously peaceful life. Maybe even two women. Keep adding women and at some point you cross a threshold into the territory between pure gossip and court conviction. The threshold number is undefined but it's pretty clear we've crossed it, and I'm fairly certain policy does not prohibit (or require) attributed content in that territory. Argue UNDUE if you like, but calling it "pure gossip" only undermines your argument. And don't argue BLP unless you can point to part of BLP that says BLP-cool content in the body can become BLP-vio when summarized in the lead. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  10:39, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No, the number changes nothing. It's still gossip. There has been no conviction, only allegations.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If there were anything in policy to the effect that presence or absence of a court conviction should figure into our decisions, I suspect you would have linked it by now. If you want to stick to an argument that may be ignored by the closer, I'm sure the Yeses are happy to let you do it. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  11:07, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Zigzig20s, now I'm going to question your COMPETENCE on the subject of BLP. Seriously. Your ideas are not coming from that policy. We document f###ing EVERYTHING here, including serious gossip, as long as it's notable enough to be mentioned in RS. Mere garden variety "gossip" is what is pushed only by National Enquirer and such unreliable sources.
 * By contrast, this content is from ALL the most notable RS that exist. They are serious allegations of sexual misconduct, groping, and even violent forcible rape of a 13-year old minor at a party held by Trump's good friend for many years, Jeffrey Epstein, who was known to provide underage girls for his party-goers. He is a registered sex offender. In 2008, Epstein was convicted of soliciting an underage girl for prostitution, for which he served 13 months in prison.
 * No, your competence is sadly lacking. You really need to read BLP. ANY KIND of negative information is potential content if it's reported in RS. This is major enough to get two articles here, which are abundantly sourced. You can't brush this off as mere "gossip". Guilt or innocence, and lack of any conviction, are totally irrelevant. We are duty bound to document it. We have done that. It is weighty enough for a sentence in the lead, just like all other biographies where this is a topic. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:47, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, mystery solved. Zigzig20s is applying WP:BLPCRIME while ignoring (or forgetting) its first sentence. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  15:20, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that first sentence:


 * "This section (WP:BLPCRIME) applies to individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by WP:WELLKNOWN."

We treat private persons with kid gloves, but those gloves come off when dealing with public persons, and the higher up, the more vulnerable they get. They have chosen to let their lives be examined and publicized in embarrassingly close detail, and we must document how RS report it. Exposure comes with their job, and documentation comes with ours. The President of the USA gets ZERO special protection. On the contrary, he gets the least protection of all, and that has always been the case with every President, both at Wikipedia and in real life. We follow policy closely, but boldly. We don't keep negative information out of his article because someone doesn't like it or vague wikilawyering, and most of the objections and !votes fall in the category and must be discounted by the closer.

If a subject is worth a whole section (and in this case at least two articles!), it deserves mention in the lead. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:58, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Give me a break, you can continue to bombast these obviously libelous accusations to such a degree where it sounds like it came from the lips of Walter Cronkite himself, but they are still at the end of the day unproven allegations with no merit in the court of law and therefor no merit to be included in this article. I have no idea why you'd think including these into the lede is such a grand idea; legitimately I do not. You're pushing for this, and even the mental illness malarkey, solely on RS alone without any evidence of wrongdoing provided by the justice system. Last I checked people were innocent before proven guilty but not on Wikipedia it seems, not when Donald Trump is concerned no no no. You are right about one thing, the President gets the least protection of all. THIS Presidents gets the LEAST protection; everyone else we suddenly become sane enough to not include equally as false accusations about Kenya or Bush doing 9/11. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 22:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Wow! 70.44.154.16, your incompetence to edit here is showing. Actually we DO base content "solely on RS alone", and often "without any evidence". That is our job. You don't seem to understand our policies very well. The following replies by EvergreenFir and Mandruss are pretty good. I suggest you learn from them. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:25, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a court of law, though. If reliable sources widely report something, we should give it due coverage in our encyclopedia article.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 22:35, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BLPCRIME, "innocent until proven guilty" does not apply to public figures. We go by Wikipedia content policy, whether it pleases you or not. If you wish to propose a change to policy, this is the wrong place to do it. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Feel the same way. The lead doesn't really create an accurate picture of him or his image. The campaign section too doesn't really capture the controversial nature of his campaign. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:04, 10 January 2018 (UTC) Still undecided on it, but people seem to be hyperbolic in regards to this. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:07, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

30 days approacheth
This is coming up on 30 days and I don't see any reason to extend past the default. The Opposes have a significant numerical lead, but in my opinion the knowledge of / attention to policy leaves something to be desired on both sides. I therefore want to request uninvolved close at WP:ANRFC. If there is no objection I will post the request sometime tomorrow, unless somebody beats me to it. Not a bad example of keeping it civil and avoiding out-of-control circular discussion, by the way. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  08:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Close requested. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  08:37, 3 February 2018 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.