Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 84

Seeking to modify consensus item #27
Today, I attempted to re-arrange the wording of the sentence about Clinton being the original birther to say that "falsely claimed" rather than "claimed, falsely." It was reverted by Mandruss per consensus item #27. Apparently, we take the wording of these things quite literally (not that I'm going to complain). However, as far as I could tell, consensus was established for "claimed, falsely" not because that particular wording was desired over others but rather because there was a consensus that the adverb "falsely" belonged and editors ran with the first suggested wording that incorporated it. My grievance with the use of the parenthetical is that it highlights and thereby emphasizes the falseness of the claim, despite it not being the encyclopedia's job to editorially emphasize any particular idea; we highlight what is important by speaking of it (more important things receive more coverage) and speak thereof in a plain, disinterested manner. I thus seek consensus to replace "claimed, falsely," with "falsely claimed." —Compassionate727 (T·C) 20:14, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Your copy edit was an improvement, in my opinion.  SPECIFICO talk 20:30, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

…and the incident points up why these unofficial "consensus" points are pointless, IMO, except where they're the result of an RfC. Consensus can change, so while it's fine to revert your improvement and present reasons why it is not an improvement, the mere presence of text as article 27 of the consensus list is not such an argument.  SPECIFICO talk 20:30, 4 June 2018 (UTC) This proposal to amend #27 will probably be fairly straightforward, provided editors don't spend a lot of time opposing process by obstructing it. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:55, 4 June 2018 (UTC) Please stop repeatedly casting aspersions at editors who are conforming to the ArbCom remedies and expecting you to do likewise. They are not a matter for local discussion; if you disagree, find the nearest admin and discuss it with them. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:28, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The first two bullets in the ArbCom "Remedy instructions and exemptions" (collapsed at the top of this page) read:
 * Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
 * Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as clear vandalism.
 * Note that it says nothing about the magnitude or nature of the edit, and to relax that bright line would do more harm than good. You are free to advocate for a change to the ground rules, but, until you succeed in achieving a change, please respect them.
 * Oh, well if you were addressing me, I already commented on OP's edit and I have no further interest in it. Unless "clearly established consensus" is defined I have no idea what this is about. RfC yes. Discuss first. Otherwise, ? It's just a layer of self-appointed bureaucracy to be selectively and arbitrarily enforced and snag newcomers to the page, such as OP. SPECIFICO talk 21:12, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "Clearly established consensus" IS defined. I can't imagine how you could have been around this article for so long and not know that the consensus list lists consensuses that the group agrees are the most "clearly established consensuses". Anybody who disagreed could have voiced objection at any time after #27 was added on 11 April of this year. No one did, so it's a "clearly established consensus" for purposes of the ArbCom restrictions. It isn't complicated at all.
 * Now you're soliciting a response to an entirely vacuous undefined aspersion against some unnamed person or persons, etc. Cut it out. You know you're welcome at my talk page any time you wish to raise off-topic concerns. Not here. Nothing after my initial comment to OP is should remain on this page, IMO. SPECIFICO talk 21:31, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Your initial comment to OP was an off-topic objection to well-established process, and I'm including it in my collapse titled "Process discussion". &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Hatting this discussion was weird because the first half of 's first sentence was relevant and the rest wasn't. Hopefully nobody objects to me splitting it in two. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 21:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Agree that setting off the word "falsely" adds a bit of emphasis to the word. Not convinced that the emphasis is undue, but I don't feel strongly about it. It clearly flows better without the pause, so I'll support. It's not like readers are going to miss the word because it isn't set off by commas; if that's the case I'd like to propose setting off a few hundred other words in the article. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:47, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Support per Mandruss's reasoning. (Also, it's arguable that a few authoritative mainstream sources may at some point have supported Trump's claim, at least in part. If so, I'd rather not risk goading any aggrieved editors into starting that argument.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:11, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - No opinion on the adjective used, but your rewrite is, in my opinion, more grammatically sound than the original phrasing. Nanophosis (talk) 01:45, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support – Smoother sentence flow. — JFG talk 09:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Trump Going on a Diet
Today trump announced he is going to start eating healthier. 24.51.215.40 (talk) 01:43, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, WP:NOTNEWS WP:RECENTISM WP:10YT. O3000 (talk) 01:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I actually agree with Objective here, weird. PackMecEng (talk) 17:26, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd like to announce that I am going on a diet too, with an intention to eat healthier. I think my announcement is just of worthy of inclusion as Trump's. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:32, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Me too! Together we shall diet. — JFG talk 19:30, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * And yet we manage to find room in the article for "Several prominent physicians who have not examined Trump have commented that his weight, lifestyle, and LDL cholesterol level of 143 do not indicate excellent health"... I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:51, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Feel free to remove that. — JFG talk 15:46, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Given the history of that sentence, I think it's safe to say that removal would be reverted. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  15:51, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Possibly, but it's less recent now. WP:CCC — JFG talk 16:13, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Let me make that into a confirmation; indeed, I would revert that removal, since if we're including Ronny Jackson's statement of excellent health we should also include other analyses as reported in RS. (overall, though, I think I'd support removing most of the health section, i.e both Jackson's statement and the analyses of other physicians) Also, I think WP:CCC is often overused; it is still going to be the same dozen or so editors arguing over it now than when it was discussed before, and they are unlikely to shift much in opinion. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:17, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * There is a big difference between a statement about an announcement of someone's diet and a well-verified claim by relevant authorities about the health of the president of the US. Drmies (talk) 16:20, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Fine. Not important either way. Hey, we just pre-empted some drama by chatting here. Wonderful achievement! — JFG talk 16:21, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Let's celebrate. Cheeseburgers for everyone. Drmies (talk) 16:27, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Premature. Not everybody has seen this. Still plenty of time for drama. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  16:28, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * My head already hurts today, no need to kick start a new month long adventure for something minor. PackMecEng (talk) 16:31, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Besides, if it’s like most diets, by the time we stopped debating, he’d be off it. Is swearing off fatty foods likely to last any longer than Roseanne swearing off Twitter? O3000 (talk) 18:12, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

"And some, I assume, are good people."
I've reverted this edit because it seems super clunky. Is it really necessary? And if so, can we do a better job of it? -- Scjessey (talk) 16:52, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * What part is not necessary?--MONGO 17:21, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The entire part that was added. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:31, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that was in response to this thread. PackMecEng (talk) 17:25, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That thread doesn't appear to have resolved anything, and has gone a little stale. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:31, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * This is such a controversial statement and has almost become infamous at this point that I think it would be better for us to just use his direct quote in its entirety rather than trying to paraphrase part of it. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:34, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with that. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:36, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * How about "Trump launched his 2016 presidential campaign with a speech in which he stated: "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with them. They're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime, they're rapists, and some, I assume, are good people." Rreagan007 (talk) 17:42, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Two thumbs up. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, if the quote, as short as it is anyway, is to be included, include all of it.--MONGO 17:48, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * agree, better than trying to paraphrase that by basically repeating the quote Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:52, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh dear. This edit from was not very smart, given that we're in mid discussion. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:59, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I was not aware of this discussion. I simply saw a claim in a Wikipedia article that did not match what was in the cited source and tried to correct it. After the correction was reverted, I tried correcting it with different wording. I stand by my conclusion that the claim does not match what was in the cited source. Is someone willing to argue that it does? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:19, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the edit adding the actual quote. --MelanieN (talk) 19:11, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * +1 to using the full quote without comment. — JFG talk 19:29, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

has changed the quote we all agreed to, without explicitly notifying us, to make it look as if we agreed to something we didn't. I don't think the addition is necessary, but it isn't a deal breaker for me. I just wanted to make sure everyone was aware of this unpublicized change. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:26, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I apologize. The original quote I found was apparently incomplete. To check the quotation, I actually went back and watched the video of the speech and discovered the error. If we use the original shortened version, we should include ellipsis to indicate that part of the quote was removed. So the two choices are:

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

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

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


 * If we are to provide a direct quote (and I think that we should) we should provide the entire, unedited quote. Using an ellipsis is for removing extra words that do not change the meaning, and you will never get a consensus that this is true in this case. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:14, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I think there's already agreement to use (1) the complete words.  SPECIFICO talk 01:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I also think using the complete quote is better. It gives the full context, and I think until we actually include the entire quote rather than paraphrases or partial quotes, many people will still be unsatisfied. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

 Support Option 1: This is the best choice IMO. Gandydancer (talk) 02:44, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, if we really want to quote Trump's words verbatim, it's getting a bit long-winded, because Trump is ad-libbing. Per the cited Sky News source, the full quote would be:
 * That is in my opinion too long, and the middle part is superfluous. I think we can dispense with "not sending you" and "lots of problems" parts, therefore use option 2, which got full agreement in the discussion above before somebody edited the quote. — JFG talk 03:08, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "Full agreement??" What are you talking about? Version 1 cleans up the stutter and gives the entire sense of the quote. Version 2 is artfully edited to convey something less than what Trump stated. Where was there full agreement to use the sanitized #2?  SPECIFICO talk 03:14, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * As our esteemed colleague noted above,  edited his proposed quote at 20:38 UTC, after all participating editors in this thread so far had agreed to what is now called "option 2": Scjessey, MONGO, Galobtter, Guy Macon, MelanieN and myself. After that edit and Scjessey's clarification, Guy Macon, you and Gandydancer picked the longer "option 1" version. — JFG talk 03:27, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I do support option #1, but it wouldn't break my heart if the consensus was for option #2. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:54, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * We could also perhaps use an extra quote from the same source, whereby Trump clarified that he was not only talking about Mexicans, but also immigrants from Central America coming via Mexico. You have people coming in, and I'm not just saying Mexicans - I'm talking about people that are from all over that are killers and rapists, and they're coming into this country. What do you think? — JFG talk 03:17, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * We're not going to get into the "clarify" and "it was just a joke" and "what I really meant" revisions.  SPECIFICO talk 03:20, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Nobody else than you talked about a joke; Trump certainly did not. And he was always clear about who the source of crime and drugs was, in his view: immigrants from Central America crossing Mexico, especially gangs from Colombia and El Salvador. This played out repeatedly. — JFG talk 03:30, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No, he wasn't always clear. That is one of his problems, and he gets himself into trouble at times with his words. HiLo48 (talk) 03:33, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair point: Trump was not always clear; still he made that distinction over and over again. Still makes it today with regard to MS-13 gang members. — JFG talk 05:45, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * JFG, you are the one who suggested using a revisionist version that changes "Mexico sending us its people" to some otherstuff about Central America. You might as well say he was discussing the Superbowl.  SPECIFICO talk 03:38, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not "revisionist" to add relevant information that was duly noted by RS. Please stay focused on the edits at hand instead of distracting your fellow editors with "jokes" and "the Superbowl". — JFG talk 05:43, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Depends what you mean. If Trump had done it, that would have been revisionist. If a WP editor does it, that's called "SYNTH". Unless you have a citation that verifies Trump's famous statement (you know, the one we're discussing here) really being about Central Americans just passin' thru Mexico, there's no possible justification for your proposed revisionist version. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 18:01, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Depends what you mean. If Trump had done it, that would have been revisionist. If a WP editor does it, that's called "SYNTH". Unless you have a citation that verifies Trump's famous statement (you know, the one we're discussing here) really being about Central Americans just passin' thru Mexico, there's no possible justification for your proposed revisionist version. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 18:01, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Whichever version is used, a video-clip illustration (if available) would be appropriate for this signature campaign-launch statement. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 18:04, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Option 2 - I prefer the shortened version with the ellipsis for brevity. I think the removed bit adds no useful context. With that said, I don't have any strong objection to option 1. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:14, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Option 2 I did know what that the entire quote was much longer (which is why I added the ellipsis); "They're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime, they're rapists, and some, I assume, are good people" is the most quoted and most important portion, with the rest being quite unnecessary to include; "They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with them." doesn't add anything, as the problems are described in the next sentence. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:40, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Option 1 But its a detail and I won't make an arbcom case if option #2 gets adopted instead. <b style="color:#060">L293D</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b> • <b style="color:#000">✎</b>) 14:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support option 1  of course. Because it's complete and gives true context.  <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;">✉ ✓ 14:08, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Option 1 per SPECIFICO above. עם ישראל חי (talk) 14:40, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 2 per Galobtter, with two changes. The period preceding the ellipsis is missing, and, per MOS:ELLIPSIS, there should be a space on each side of the ellipsis. Suggest coding . &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  15:06, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Option 2 Brevity is the soul and all. But, don’t object to either option. O3000 (talk) 15:23, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Option 1 Just use the full quote, covers all the bases and gives full context. PackMecEng (talk) 16:26, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Option 1: A significant percentage of our readers will object to editing the words of Donald Trump. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:44, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I added the link to the C-SPAN video on YouTube to both and to .  The transcript of the speech was already cited in the Announcement_speech section, and I added it to the Racial_views section, as well. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:06, 2 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Option 1 per reasoning of PackMecEng. Greg L (talk) 16:04, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * At what point during this ongoing discussion (in this thread and in ) was there consensus to replace the previous wording "Trump launched his 2016 presidential campaign with a speech in which he described Mexican immigrants as criminals and rapists" with a direct quote, never mind which direct quote? If I had to choose between the two direct quotes presented so far, I’d choose Option 2.  As for Option 1, the quote is incorrect.  Trump didn’t say "they're bringing those problems with them", he said "they're bringing those problems with us".  And both quotes are incomplete without the sentences that follow. So, here’s Option 3:  "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best...They're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime, they're rapists, and some, I assume, are good people. But I speak to border guards and they tell us what we’re getting. And it only makes common sense. … They’re sending us not the right people." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:51, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Naw. Your proposed Option 3 is poor encyclopedic prose because it begs a question and the paragraph in which that quote is imbedded does nothing to explain the begged question. The penultimate sentence in your expanded quote mentions “it” (And it only makes common sense); which is to say, the expanded version you are proposing begs the question of what, now, is the subject being discussed. Furthermore, your proposal again employs the ellipsis we’re trying to address. One could arbitrarily expand the passage being quoted upwards and downwards by increasing amounts but Option 1 seems to strike the best compromise for serving the interest of our readership by not employing an ellipsis that replaced key wording from the middle of the quoted passage. Greg L (talk) 17:06, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * My preferred version is still the original one which is short and to the point and omits all of the direct speech argle-bargle and the need to "edit the words of Donald Trump", as another editor put it. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:20, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * We should quote the entire speech, lest we edit the words of Donald Trump. It follows that we should report every damn word the man says. We'll need another spinoff article, Things Donald Trump has said. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  17:33, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not "key wording" so much as word salad, and it doesn't "serv[e] the interest of our readership" in the slightest. The meaning is plain whether it is left in or out, and it provides no additional context. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:30, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Now that the furor has died down and we are close to a consensus, I would once again like to repeat that the claim "he described Mexican immigrants as criminals and rapists" is not in the source cited and that I was entirely correct to change it to "he described some Mexican immigrants as criminals and rapists.". Those who reverted and or criticized me for such an obviously correct action should take a long hard look at whether they are allowing their political views to interfere with the basic principle that the claim should match the citation. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:25, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it hasn't, no, we're not, and your proposed change still incorrectly reflects the sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump&oldid=843183191. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 04:48, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes it has, yes we are, and his proposed change is accurate, encyclopedic, and concise. What's more, content should not "reflect the sources", rather, the prose written is to be supported by sources - you have it backwards, .  We don't parrot sources, we write content with original prose and use reliable sources to back it up.   has been here a long time, has ten-of-thousands more edits than both of us put together, and I assure you that he is always thorough as well as honest in his dealings here in Wikipedia.  I trust his assessment and agree with it.  You should, too.  <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;">✉ ✓ 05:01, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * content should not "reflect the sources", rather, the prose written is to be supported by sources - Since that distinction is lost on me, I'm apparently no match for your intellect, Winkelvi. To my limited mind, "reflect the sources" seems quite consistent with the first paragraph at WP:NPOV. I've always said Wikipedia policy is too complicated and nuanced for simple folk like me. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  05:28, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Huh, me too. I wish maybe there'd be a WP:Simple guide to NPOV for folk like us. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:35, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry you're both having trouble understanding the difference between "represent" (take the place of in some respect and aspect) and "reflect" (to mirror, provide an image of what's seen in proximity). <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;">✉ ✓ 05:51, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a useful distinction, thanks. WP:Simple guide to NPOV would be neat indeed. — JFG talk 05:55, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry I'm just too simple to cherry-pick the one sense of a word that gives me something to argue about. Probably I've also been misled by the rampant use of the phrase "reflect the sources" throughout the project. Thank you for enlightening us. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  06:01, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not suggesting any change. The versions that are currently being discussed are better than what I wrote or the lie I was replacing. Nor do have a problem with the claim that my edit also imperfectly reflected what is in the source -- that's why we have discussions and that's why we now have a couple of choices that are far better than my original effort at fixing the source/claim mismatch.
 * I do not wish to single any one person out, but could someone thinks my edit was not an improvement please explain how the hell you can support an article saying that Trump described Mexican immigrants as criminals and rapists when the source clearly says that Trump described some Mexican immigrants as criminals and rapists? If you cannot see the difference or cannot see that the source contradicts the claim, then perhaps you can tell me, when you went to school, whether you rode on the short bus or the long bus...
 * And yes, I have been editing Wikipedia for 12 years, have made 40,000 edits with zero blocks or other sanctions, and am the author of the well-regarded essay WP:1AM. That doesn't make me any better than a new editor, but please consider the possibility that maybe, just maybe, I know what I am talking about. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:07, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

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


 * Melanie, when Trump said "Mexico sends its people..." what is a plausible rationale for any uncertainty that these people are Mexican people? The first time this came up and somebody suggested he was really talking about Central Americans passing through there was no support. Do you have a reference or other reason to interpret "its people" as being from somewhere other than its own country? <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 00:03, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


 * If we are going to be modern-day kremlinologists and try to figure out what Trump "really meant" instead of what he actually said, we could start with the fact that Mexico doesn't appear to have "sent" anyone but rather they voluntarily chose to cross the border. But that way leads to madness. Far better to just report what he actually said. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * SPECIFICO, I'm not arguing that he meant one thing or another. I'm just saying that the paraphrase "described Mexican immigrants as..." is putting words in his mouth. And of course, as Guy points out, the notion that Mexico is "sending" us people (as Castro once did) is nonsense. Bottom line, if his words are unclear or need parsing or seem to be modified by things he said later, we mustn't try to interpret them. Sometimes all we can do is report what he actually said. --MelanieN (talk) 15:15, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I supported including both the complete text and a video clip, so I don't believe we disagree about that. I'm saying that - in the absence of well-sourced references to support it - we should reject any revisionist claims that he was really talking about something entirely outside the statement we're discussing. If JFG is the only editor who has favored WP saying that Trump's Mexico statement should be decoded to suggest that Trump was actually referring to Central American criminals, then we needn't discuss it further. Does any of us currently favor WP saying that Trump "really meant" Central American criminals when he said "Mexico sending us its people..."? If not, we can move on. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 15:27, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Trump's later comments about Central American criminals are not on the table in this discussion. We only need to pick a quote from his initial speech, as that was the seminal moment that received the most attention, even to this day. — JFG talk 16:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your retracting that claim. It greatly simplifies this process. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 16:12, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

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

In the meantime, somebody has placed the short quote in the article (option 2), and it has not been reverted. I think that's fair, because both options under discussion include that part of the quote, it's just that option 1 would make it longer. So the only decision to make now is: "do editors want the longer quote?" Looking at the opinions expressed so far, I see: Overall, opinions are pretty balanced between supporters of both options. A third option was proposed and rejected. , in your eternal wisdom, what would you recommend doing? — JFG talk 20:56, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support longer quote (option 1): Gandydancer, Specifico, ψλ, עם ישראל חי, PackMecEng, Greg L, MONGO
 * Support shorter quote (option 2): Galobtter, JFG, Mandruss, O3000, Space4Time3Continuum2x, Scjessey, MelanieN
 * Support option 1 but would accept option 2: Guy Macon, L293D, Gandydancer
 * Should clarify, because they expressed their opinion before options 1 and 2 were clearly laid out:, , (please comment if you wish)
 * Has commented in discussion, but not expressed a preference: (please comment if you wish)
 * Would still prefer the initial paraphrase: Space4Time3Continuum2x
 * We cannot be conducting these editorial discussions as if they come down to a vote. Interim updates of the voting returns only make the situation worse. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 21:05, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You are the only one talking about votes. I just provided a summary of the debate at hand and opinions expressed so far. It would be refreshing if you'd kindly stop questioning the discussion process in every thread. — JFG talk 21:19, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Believe I stated previously that I prefer the entire quote an that is where I still stand.--MONGO 11:52, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, actually, I'm one editor who wants to "go back to the paraphrase" that IMO shouldn't have been replaced by the direct quote while the discussion was taking place, and I said so, right before I "proposed" Option 3 - I definitely need to cut out the sarcasm. It is my understanding that if the consensus is inconclusive, the long-established text remains. If I'm wrong, then opting for the shortest direct quote, Option 2. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I would gladly accept the shorter quote over a paraphrase. Gandydancer (talk) 14:40, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks all for your input; I have updated the summary above. — JFG talk 15:49, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 June 2018
Please change "Before entering politics, he was a businessman and television personality." to "Before entering politics, he was a businessman and reality television personality." CryMeAnOcean (talk) 23:31, 12 June 2018 (UTC)


 * ❌ - Extensively discussed, see, item 17. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:53, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Gorsuch appointment in the lead
I believe I supported this addition a year ago; at this point in his presidency I think there are more notable events to discuss in the lead section, and propose removing it. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 18:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it should be in the lede, but I don't have a strong opinion. Very notable and has long-term encyclopedic value. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:06, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you proposing a simple removal, or a swap? I support the removal considering the developments since that time, and the fact that it was more so that he demanded the nuclear option rather than his specific pick. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:08, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * There's a constant stream of addition requests, so I'm not proposing any particular swap. Someone will use the space soon enough. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 19:13, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * A SCOTUS appointment is a big deal, and content on it has lasting value to Wikipedia since SCOTUS appointees have a seat until the end of time (or at least that's how it feels somewhat). I think it should stay, personally.  <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;">✉ ✓ 19:15, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Nobody is denying that a SCOTUS appointment is a big deal in general, but we need to consider in the context of a biography on the entire life of Donald Trump. WP:LASTING is about whether an event should have its own article not whether it should be mentioned in the lead of other article, MOS:LEAD is what we have to help us there. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:37, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support removing it from the lead. I looked at all the other current SCOTUSes and the biographies of Presidents who put them there; none of them are mentioned in the lead, and are given as much prominence in the article as appointments to other courts. I don't oppose summarizing all of Trump's court appointments, as short as possible. w umbolo   ^^^  19:47, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep it for now. It's still considered a major thing, as the "balance of power" in the Supreme Court had been hotly debated since the death of Antonin Scalia. More lead-worthy than the "Cuban thaw" as of today. — JFG talk 19:49, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support removing it. When it was added it was a significant point, but in the ensuing months its significance has faded in comparison to other biographical content.- MrX 🖋 11:54, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Remove first, it's not personal so it's much more relevant to the Presidency article. Second, it's entirely due to the tireless efforts of Sen. Mitch McConnell and Trump just happened to arrive when it came to fruition.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 18:03, 3 June 2018 (UTC)


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


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

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

This would be placed at the end of the paragraph on domestic policy actions. The Gorsuch nomination was at the beginning because that was one of the first things Trump did upon taking office; now we can see that with some perspective, and observing a continuous flow of judicial appointments. — JFG talk 09:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I support this version for now, but expect that in 12-18 months there will be enough other events that we'll be discussing its removal. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 16:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * And I've BOLD-ly implemented this as an interim measure. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 17:54, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Better to boldly remove it, please. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:10, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

The key point about the large number of judicial appointments the Republicans have achieved in the past 18 months has been that there was an especially large number of vacancies due to their unprecedented action of having blocked virtually all Obama Administration nominations, and that many of the nominees had dubious qualifications for the roles and in at least one widely publicized case were forced to withdraw for gross and manifest inability to respond to typical Congressional screening. This context could be added in a compact, well-crafted sentence.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 18:42, 5 June 2018 (UTC)


 * User:SPECIFICO - Numbers in the lists for recent presidents seem to contradict this narrative.  It seems more a matter of random fluctuations and re-balancing by alternating parties in office.  Or maybe more accurately said as alternating the unbalancing ?  In any case, nothing here seems suitable for BLP.
 * List of federal judges appointed by Barack Obama
 * List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_George_W._Bush
 * List of federal judges appointed by Bill Clinton
 * Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:43, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Today I wrote instead:

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


 * modified by other editors since then - Yeah, apparently there is some misunderstanding that a consensus has to be in the list to require prior consensus to change itenough of one for that change to slip by without challenge. The prior consensus rule predates the list, so that can't be the case. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  08:46, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Bygones. Now what is your opinion on the above two versions? — JFG talk 11:13, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you know how I feel about these things. A lot of editor time is invested in the consensus version, I see no compelling reason to revisit, and I feel our limited time would be better spent on things that haven't received any attention. I think perfect is the enemy of good and the status quo is Good Enough. I don't claim that such discussions are strictly improper, but I generally sit them out. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  11:36, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * As you noted yourself, this one was a weak consensus, so that it's worth trying to improve the sentence. I may be a star-struck optimist, but little by little this article should make its way to GA promotion. — JFG talk 12:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * New versions seems better to me Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:10, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The term commented is OK, per WP:SAID. Yet in this context, the term said may be more accurate in describing the outside experts' statements. See the subtitle: Outside experts say, and the body Cardiologists said ... [a cardiologist] said ... said ... offered a reply ... said ... said ... said ... said ... added ... said ... said ... saying ... expressed concern ... said ... said ... calculated the risk ... said. The story uses the term comments twice, and only in describing the examining physician's statements: Dr. Jackson's comments ... his comments to reporters. --Dervorguilla (talk) 20:07, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, "said" is fine but it's a bit dull; "commented" is still neutral. Otherwise we could use "opined", because those are opinions, but I'm afraid that would attract backlash. Apart from this choice of verb (which is used in both versions), which version would you rate better? — JFG talk 20:31, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * As written, the second version just won't do. We shouldn't say should. Nor ought we to say ought to. For the authors don't use either term in this context. Nor do the cardiologists. Also: Many readers and therefore many cardiologists believe Mr. Trump has no heart, in the sense of having no empathy. So why should they have any concerns about its health, or his? --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:11, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the second approach is better, but I don't like "serious heart concerns" either. How about "commented that his weight, lifestyle, and LDL cholesterol level may raise concerns about his cardiac health."? --MelanieN (talk) 23:01, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That kind of emphasizes the euphemistic language, imo. Don't RS report this as an issue relating to the truthfulness of his medical reports rather than relating to diagnosis? I read the sum total of the reports, including the antics of Bornstein and Jackson as indicating that there was very widespread skepticism as to whether the readings or the evaluation were truthful. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 23:09, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That's what the earlier version meant when it said "do not indicate excellent health": that the doctors were directly contradicting Jackson's report. However, AFAIK the sources mostly report the outside doctors' opinions without actually saying "in a challenge to Jackson's report". And we live and die here by what the sources say. --MelanieN (talk) 23:34, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe one key difference is that "raise concerns" is weasel, possibly a double weasel as to whose concerns and what the concerns may be. "Do not indicate excellent health" conveys the meaning that according to diagnostic or statistical standards for the "excellent" fraction of the population, Trump's readings did not qualify. Just like the check engine light "indicates" trouble with your car, or the pop-out thingy indicates your Butterball turkey is cooked. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 00:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Support 's version: "commented that his weight, lifestyle, and LDL cholesterol level may raise concerns about his cardiac health." It's factual, it's to the point, and it's encyclopedic. <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;">✉ ✓ 23:17, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Is the "may" necessary there? I think it would be better without the "may". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:25, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Either someone's concerns have been raised or they haven't; there is no "may" here. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 23:35, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd be OK without the word "may". And maybe it should be "concern", singular, rather than "concerns", plural. --MelanieN (talk) 23:37, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "May" is important for two reasons: It isn't said in Wikivoice that it does or doesn't raise concerns; medical conditions and medicine are uncertain and not absolute - what occurs with one person may not occur with another.  The article should not reflect that there will be concerns about his cardiac health, only that there may be depending on certain factors (of which we are not privy because of HIPAA regulations). <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;">✉ ✓ 00:46, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That is incorrect. They are not stating he "may" have a heart attack. That would require the qualifier to reflect uncertainty. They are saying it does indicate risk/concern because readings like Trumps are associated with elevated incidences of disease and death.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 01:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Or shorter:

I like this last one best. Thoughts? — JFG talk 04:24, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The first version is less awful. --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Trump's weight has serious heart concerns? Second version doesn't make sense. First version is better, and I agree that we don't need to water down the source Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:31, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I would prefer the second version, except "about" isn't the correct preposition there, and I cannot determine what is. I'll say I favor the first one while I wrangle it mentally. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 11:57, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I don’t care if the NYT headline writers (in their eagerness to get things short enough for a headline) did used the phrase “serious heart concerns”; it is unclear and unmedical. None of the doctors used that phrase, although putting it in quotes implies that they did. What they mean is “serious concerns about his cardiac health” and that’s what we should be saying. --MelanieN (talk) 13:51, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with MelanieN. "Heart" is not an English adjective, except in headlines and bumperstickers. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 14:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Then Several outside cardiologists have commented that Trump's weight, lifestyle and LDL cholesterol level raise serious concerns about his cardiac health. Main problem I have with your version is the change from "raise serious concerns" to "may raise concerns"; also, the nytimes article does use "serious heart concerns" in the main text too. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:20, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes it does, in the lede paragraph. But again, that is a reporter talking, not a doctor. --MelanieN (talk) 15:03, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe my English grammar is lacking, but to me "serious heart concerns" is fully equivalent to "serious concerns about his heart", just like a "serious heart disease" would be shorthand for a "serious disease of the heart". Of course, per, Trump may have no heart so why should anyone be concerned? — JFG talk 15:31, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not really important how we interpret it; it's important how we report it. No physician said "serious heart concerns" (and they wouldn't, that's not how doctors talk), so we should not say it (in quotes yet) as if we are reporting what an outside cardiologist said. --MelanieN (talk) 15:36, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Fine. What do you think of Galobtter's version? We should manage to close this discussion, it's not that hard. — JFG talk 15:55, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I support Galobtter's version. One of the real strengths of talk page discussion is when we manage to work out a consensus wording, which I think we may have done here. --MelanieN (talk) 16:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC) P.S. But we should get an opinion from, who restored the original wording, precipitating this discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 16:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Nicely worded. --Dervorguilla (talk) 21:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * (Delayed response because there was no ping because your added comment was not on a separate line. I just happened to run across this.) I restored it on procedural grounds, and I'm still sitting out the content discussion. IOW I'm cool with anything you decide. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:31, 5 June 2018 (UTC)


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

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

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

Can we all get on board with this? — JFG talk 09:51, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it'd be about Trump's cardiac health not for trump's cardiac health to have better grammar/clarity. Between that and one above I suggested I don't have much of a preference. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:58, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't like "outside" - how about "independent"? Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:00, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That sounds good, but begs the question "independent from whom?", just like "outside" begs "outside from where?" To simplify, we could remove the qualifier, just say "several cardiologists". — JFG talk 10:22, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * A fair and valid point. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Striking "outside" from proposal. — JFG talk 11:09, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Also changing "for" to "about" per Galobtter's remark. — JFG talk 11:11, 5 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Support version two proposed by . <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;">✉ ✓ 13:14, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support version 2, and appreciate the collaboration displayed above. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * My take on the article is that the cardiologists are criticizing Jackson’s conclusions, saying that Trump's weight, lifestyle and LDL level ought to have raised serious concerns and not resulted in an assessment of "excellent cardiac health." I think we need to keep "outside" since they did not examine Trump themselves.
 * Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:35, 5 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Clarification? What article text are you proposing to replace? There are two sentences about doc's commenting on his cardio. BTW I think we should get rid of the chat about his other organs and systems. We don't have that kind of meaningless "dog bites man" detail in articles about other real estate developers or media personalities. If it attains importance due to his public office, then this detail belongs in the Presidency article. As I've said repeatedly to deaf ears, I think the whole health section is unnecessary as long as he's up and about, performing his daily routine. Doesn't seem noteworthy. Anyway, what article text would be replaced by one of these proposed alternatives.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 13:49, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * What is noteworthy about the 2018 exam is Dr. Jackson's unprecedented and unconvincing performance for the media. But this, if it is to be addressed, should be discussed explicitly rather than by a SYTNH juxtaposition that suggests Jackson, apparently like Bornstein, was indifferent to the presenting the truth or was under some irresistible pressure to dissemble. There are ample RS that discuss this issue. Liver and cholesterol details are UNDUE. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 13:54, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that the sentence about the liver and cholesterol details should be removed. We don't need all the details, especially they seem to have been selectively released; Dr. Altman, the source for the next sentence, points out that Dr. Bornstein omitted to mention tests of kidney functions (all that diet coke taking its toll?) while mentioning liver, thyroid, prostate; WH lab results also do not show the GFR which would indicate whether there is kidney disease or risk of kidney disease. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:15, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I was wondering about the two sentences (Several prominent physicians who have not examined Trump have commented that his weight, lifestyle, and test results do not indicate excellent health. Several outside cardiologists have commented that Trump's weight, lifestyle and LDL cholesterol level should raise "serious heart concerns".) but assumed that the first one is completely off the table by now and nobody wanted to delete it before this discussion has ended. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:14, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I started to remove the second sentence (that was before this discussion was opened), but self-reverted per 1RR, assuming that someone else would see that and spend their 1R. No one did. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  14:43, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I would replace "physicians who did not examine" with "outside cardiologists" but other than that I also think this version would be better.  It's not just about cardiac health, but about overall health (stroke, kidney failure, etc.).  Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:03, 5 June 2018 (UTC)


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

PLEA- If anyone thinks they know what proposal is on the table, could you please enter it below in a big green box? One or two sentences on the prominent physicians' comments? Kidneys? Liver? Heart health? This is an example of the oft-repeated dysfunction we run into with these superficially structured but in fact very muddled and unclear polls that may lock in the parts of an elephant for 100 blind editors who are feeling tail, trunk, and cholesterol. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 16:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 1st Q: Are these serious concerns about his heart the result of exams and EKGs performed on the patient by all these outside doctors? 2nd Q: Who cares what outside doctors think?  3rd Q: Is the importance of including material about this so-called heart condition diagnosed by outside doctors a subliminal message to Congress to "wait for it..." - no need to worry about impeachment?  <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 17:38, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Looking on the bright side, we're no longer discussing hypothetical meetings, or bonespurs, hair ... Here' the entire paragraph with my two proposals; maybe other editors will follow suit.
 * Option A:
 * Option B:
 * Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:02, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:02, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Prefer A but support B as alternative Admirably concise and complete text in both versions. Both reflects all of the discussion on this page. Thanks 432x. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 18:48, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Gee, and I thought we were close to consensus this morning... Alright, one more round. Regarding proposals A and B above, I strongly disagree with removing the sentence: A followup medical report showed Trump's blood pressure, liver and thyroid functions to be in normal ranges. This followup report was the only real data about Trump's health during the campaign; if we want to shorten this part, we better remove the sensationalist content-free letter that gushed about Trump becoming the "healthiest person ever elected to the presidency". Then, regarding the sentence that has been under discussion in this thread, i.e. the assessment by outside cardiologists, I still prefer the stronger wording "serious concerns" rather than the watered-down "not excellent health" proposed here, so that's version A, minus the "ought to have raised" which is again some unnecessary watering-down of the cardiologists' assessment. Note that my first version way up top of the thread said the data should raise "serious heart concerns", which is close to the ought to have raised serious concerns about his cardiac health now being floated. Is it more important to say that the interviewed cardiologists disagreed with the White House doctor, or that they estimated that published weight and cholesterol data should raise serious concerns? I think the latter is more significant, notwithstanding all the trash that was later thrown at Jackson for unrelated reasons (his nomination to VA). — JFG talk 21:46, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Prefer A but will accept B. I am OK with leaving out the BP, liver, and thyroid details. In either case we should delete the redundant sentence Trump is overweight and takes statins to lower his cholesterol level.[74] The same information is in the following sentence. --MelanieN (talk) 21:59, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Overweight is a repeat but statins is not; we should keep that one. Just say He takes statins to lower his cholesterol level. — JFG talk 22:23, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Then you would still have cholesterol in two adjacent sentences. Remove the first sentence; the second sentence deals with both weight and cholesterol. --MelanieN (talk) 17:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, I've done that, and just tacked "and takes statin" at the end of the previous sentence. The link allows readers to understand what a statin is for. — JFG talk 21:45, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

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


 * Option D C


 * NPOV, dispassionate tone - summary. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 00:27, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Psssst...., is it ok for me to propose Option D C or am I overlooking something again? (besides not knowing the alphabet) <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 00:55, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You are entitled to suggest whatever you want, and I am not the sole arbiter of what should go into the article, so there is no need to appeal to me personally. Now, your proposal "C" is completely different from everything we have discussed so far, so I do not endorse it, and I don't expect it will gather much support. We are down to settling finer points of grammar about opinions by some cardiologists, and we should stick to that. At least in this thread. — JFG talk 01:35, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

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


 * User:JFG Meh. A tiny bit untrue at the line 'Several outside cardiologists' and '"serious concerns"'  -- I'd drop the quotes about "serious concerns" since it is not a literal quote, and suggest better is just  WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE "Outside doctors — who have not directly examined Mr. Trump — questioned that conclusion, saying that the combination of Mr. Trump’s weight and the cardiac test results raised more concerns than Dr. Jackson’s comments would reflect.", possibly prefaced by attribution "According to the NY Times" since the phrasing is the journalists.   The article did not characterize the four named doctors explicitly as cardiologists, though I think only Dr. Gupta as medical correspondent for CNN is not, or sayhow manyoutside opinions they selected among.  Still see no reason to be spending much time over good to excellent health with ordinary and minor flaws, giving a minor NYT article of scrounged-up comments prominence, or skipping the context and greater weight in months of false health stories before the report by Dr. Jackson.   Cheers  Markbassett (talk) 04:18, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I will remove the quotes (which are not meant to be "scary" but can give this impression). The source does interview several cardiologists, and they are talking about Trump's cardiovascular risk, so that's due (they contradict the CNN guy about a calcium test but that doesn't matter). For the rest, it's true that a lot of context is omitted, especially why Trump had to respond to rumors about his mental health. I guess you could yet propose another wording in a new thread. In the meantime we have enough consensus for this one. — JFG talk 06:00, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


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


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


 * I just read Hillary Clinton remembering how ill she fell (literally, on several occasions on camera) before and during the presidential campaign, primarily because I wanted to see how her health concerns had been treated in her BLP - you know, consistency among like topics. The only mention about her health is in the last paragraph of that section. We have more speculation and opinions about Trump's health based on speculation by journalists and doctors who have never examined him. It's comical. It should not require any mention beyond the fact that his 2 doctors said he was in good to excellent health but needs to watch his weight and cholesterol.  Unlike Clinton, he never fainted, or fell down the stairs, or had to be carried into his limo - so what's why the inconsistency in how similar information is handled other than the fact they are political opposites?  <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 07:01, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh dear. Yet another Trump fan still wanting to tell us how bad Hillary apparently still is. I have a secret for you. Trump won. You can forget about Hillary now. In summary, it's irrelevant. See WP:OtherStuffExists. HiLo48 (talk) 07:56, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I guess that's because, for better or for worse, WP articles on current politics tend to follow the bulk of news covfefe. — JFG talk 07:11, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


 * User:Atsme - yes, WEIGHT tends to give space to fads, but for Hillary there were not just false rumors but actual health possible in a couple of falls, coughing issues, and the campaign collapse. And then there were imagined issues with her being helped up stairs, story about an injector pen on hand, and propped up on pillows because supposedly could not support herself.  I think at that article the equivalent of consensus #21 was chosen -- and medical stories from anyone not examining her were viewed as BLPGOSSIP.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:45, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Which in essence, sets a precedent - one that, in this case, was dismissed for unconvincing reasons. Our PAGs set a precedent, and if we abide by our PAGs for one article, those same PAGs should apply to all articles; i.e., what's good for goose is good for the gander. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 23:54, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Omissions from the introduction

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

I propose that these omissions from the introduction be corrected. EllenCT (talk) 18:08, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Check the archives of this page, that has all been discussed. PackMecEng (talk) 18:16, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I just did for #3 and find no discussion of including the record number of criminal indictments in the introduction, so would you please provide links? EllenCT (talk) 18:22, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * In order: "approval ratings" are extremely variable, I'm sure Nixon had worse at some point. There's nothing particularly meaningful to say there.  Regarding fact-checkers, "many of his public statements were controversial or false" should cover that, though it's a bit buried in its current location.  Regarding indictments: the Russia thing is already talked about, I'm not sure that a "record number of criminal indictments" specifically is worth discussing.  The resignations/firings are certainly unusual, if you have a specific sentence to propose I might support that addition. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 18:26, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Let's just take the first one. How "extreme" is "extremely variable"? And "at some point" is not the appropriate point of comparison. The appropriate point of comparison is "the same number of days into a presidency". And the only president who has come close to being so unpopular for so long is Gerald Ford (Nixon (almost) never dipped below 50%, while Trump has never broke 46%)
 * That's the thing - why this is such a glaring omission. Yes, maybe for a "normal" president, approval ratings are indeed "extremely variable" (generally not true, but let's say it is). But not for *this* president. They've been consistently low, staying in the range between 37% and 45%. THAT makes it a notable fact in and of itself and THAT is why it should be included.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:44, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * (the other unique aspect of this presidency, is that most presidents start with HIGH approval ratings and then go downhill from there (exception is Bush Jr. who got a big boost after 9/11. And Reagan and Clinton managed a bit of a comeback towards the end of their second term). Trump started low and stayed low.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:46, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The proof of his unpopularity will be GOP losses in the House in November. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 18:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe (Congress is generally more unpopular than the President, and that unpopularity tends to be more bipartisan). But that's a separate topic.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:08, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with these questions, although arguably they apply even more to the article Presidency of Donald Trump. The fact that #1, #3 and #4 - which are very very widely discussed in sources - are absent from that article is a reflection of the very successful campaign waged by pro-Trump editors to keep anything remotely negative out of our Trump related articles (I believe this was noted by User:Jimbo Wales. And the main reason they have been able to do this, despite representing a minority of editors on Wikipedia is the ridiculous "cannot restore without consensus" (a consensus which, with just a bit of bad faith, is easy to sabotage) "Discretionary Sanctions" which has given an effective right veto to a small but very vocal and tendentious minority. The administrator who invented out of thin air and imposed this sanction is gone but his sanction remains (and even he eventually had second thoughts about it).

Unfortunately Wikipedia has always suffered from extreme inertia, so good luck remedying this situation.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:36, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Clarification! See User:Jimbo Wales's contemporaneous comment about "our Trump-related articles". --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:38, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The editing restrictions improve article stability, and they work both to quench pro-Trump and anti-Trump partisanship. The "consensus required" provision is akin to a strict enforcement of WP:BRD, which has prevented many edit wars. The list of codified consensus also avoids fruitless repeats of prior discussions on controversial issues. The article would be a total mess without this code of conduct. — JFG talk 19:14, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "The editing restrictions improve article stability" - they improve stability by making it impossible to edit the article. You know what else "improves stability"? Full protection and article lock down. No more edit warring. Because no one can edit. This has pretty much the same effect. "Article stability" is a bullshit goal that only clueless administrators who don't care about content believe in. Or, I guess, those who realize that "article stability" preserves their preferred POV version. Like I said, the practical result of this particular AC/DS sanction is to give veto power to a single pro-Trump editor or a couple pro-Trump editors who can effectively block any improvements to the article if these aren't sufficiently obsequious of the "god-emperor". That's the sorry state we're in right now.
 * And no, the "consensus required" provision is nothing like WP:BRD. The "consensus required" provision is a straight up veto power over any changes to the article. It's actually very much against the spirit of Wikipedia which relies on collaborative and gradual improvement, as well as being bold.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:50, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If you think that editing restrictions amount to "veto power" for pro-Trump editors, surely you must recognize they also amount to "veto power" for anti-Trump editors. You have as much "veto rights" as your political opponents, and that's the way it should be because of the Five Pillars. We have been here long enough to see what a train wreck the article and the talk page were before the restrictions were imposed. I for one don't want to go back there. — JFG talk 22:22, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * " surely you must recognize they also amount to "veto power" for anti-Trump editors." <-- this is true but it misses the point. That's NOT a good thing either. Giving any side, any editor (or in this case a group of editors) veto power is contrary to the values of the encyclopedia. Articles are suppose to be improved and updated, not stagnate because of a stalemate situation. (5 pillars have nothing to do with this)
 * And actually there are two reasons why the situation isn't symmetric. First, it's just the nature of the Trump presidency itself. Let's face it, this presidency has stumbled from scandal to scandal, from one crazy tweet to another, from one lie to another, from one indictment to another, from one resignation to another appointment of some crazy person. Incidents that would have toppled any other administration occur on monthly or weekly basis. Most of the stuff that pops up organically is negative because, quite simply it's a negative presidency. In such a situation the veto power to keep negative OUT is worth much more than the veto power to keep the positive OUT for the very simple reason that with this president... there just isn't much positive anyway.
 * The second reason why it's not symmetric just has to with the nature of the editors. I'm sorry to say, and yes, this is a generalization which does not apply to every editor, but broadly speaking the pro-Trump editors are a lot less likely to WP:GAME the restriction and Wikipedia policies and to act in bad faith. Why do you think there's a constant churn of topic bans for such editors going through WP:AE and WP:ANI? No, it's not bias, it's just that as a group, these pro-Trump editors are helluva more disruptive. And of course there's nothing surprising about this. Go to any other social media site like reddit or facebook or whatever and it's the same story - pro-Trump users (again, as a group) doing stupid, offensive shit, getting themselves banned then coming up with "cute" ways of trying to circumvent their restrictions. That's like the whole internet right now. So you have a situation where one side acts in good faith, the other side acts in bad faith... guess whom an absolutist sanction such as this one benefits most? It's a no brainer.
 * It's a bad sanction. It kills articles. It goes against spirit of Wikipedia. And the 5 pillars.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:21, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. Unlike you, I recognize the difference between my biased perspective and objective fact. recently expressed the situation quite well, and I paraphrase: "Modern politicans' ability to deceive us far exceeds our ability to detect deception." Under those circumstances there is very little room for Objective Truth about politicians, but many experienced editors on both sides persist in presenting their opinions as exactly that. Most of them fail to even recognize that they have a bias; they are simply among the righteous minority who have true integrity and clarity of vision. Sometimes courage of conviction is indistinguishable from a load of crap. &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  09:47, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not part of a minority. That's sort of the point. The majority of editors - close to consensus - agree with me. But this "veto power for each side" means that majority vs. minority doesn't matter. The minority - those with no consensus - have as much power as the majority.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:54, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The editing environment has never been worse than at present. The editing is entirely reactive, following day-to-day news items. Many articles have gone completely dead after tendentious deadlocks. And fringe/POV editors in any topic area will by definition be more highly motivated to disrupt articles than mainstream NPOV editors, because NPOV editing is relatively easy and relatively simple and the mainstream offers an abundance of RS from which to create valid content. Mainstream editors are generally content to see mainstream content. Fringe POV editors in any subject -- this has been widely noted for years -- are by definition aggrieved and motivated to challenge the mainstream narrative. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 22:30, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree on the state of the editing environment: this talk page is astonishingly quiet compared to 2016 and the first half of 2017. However I agree on your rejection of fringe-POV editors: editing restrictions are a potent vaccine against them. — JFG talk 22:39, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * This talk page is quiet for the reason Marek articulated. It's hamstrung by a dysfunction I tried to explicate further. The current restrictions have paralyzed the Politics pages because small groups of vocal and insistent editors claim there's "no consensus" by voting in ways that ignore or deny fundamental WP editing policies and guidelines. That was not the intent of the restrictions and that would not be permitted if there were a large group of Admins closely following these articles and the editors here. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 22:53, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "fringe/POV editors in any topic area will by definition be more highly motivated to disrupt articles" POV editors, yes. Just "fringe" POV editors?  No.  From my observation, the POV editors who daily take advantage of and game the system at the DS and AR articles are hardly fringe.  The stalemate they create is why we can no longer have nice things in Wikipedia when it comes to editing ("nice things" being AGF, collaborative editing, and consensus the way it is meant to be).  <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;">✉ ✓ 23:06, 2 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure "consensus required" would be a problem without the "informal polls" on every question -- where the first-mover gets to frame the question, narrowing it to a binary choice. Then the so-called poll, which is in fact a vote, can easily muster enough !votes to suggest that if it's not unanimous it's not consensus, even when the minority is arguing against good RS cited content or when it is advocating UNDUE, SYNTH, and cute twists of language to block restoration of a straightforward, well-sourced edit. Admins should be able to break these logjams, because they're basically arguments against content and sourcing PAG's, but there are not enough Admins paying attention to these articles. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 22:13, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That's hogwash. Some questions are quickly decided, some are settled (or not) by a quick survey, some require a broader debate via RfC. All methods of reaching consensus and improving the article quality are equally valid. Only bad-faith editors resort to "cute twists of language", as you say. — JFG talk 22:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If you seek to change the way things are done on this page, please do it separately. It fails basic principles of organization to scatter general comments about process throughout specific content discussions. Any change would require editor focus, thorough examination, and careful thought, and we can't begin to do that in a content discussion. Short version: You're off topic. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  05:05, 3 June 2018 (UTC)


 * And this is not the Page semi-protected Presidency of Donald Trump article, so what goes on there is irrelevant to this none.
 * As to the points raised.
 * Why doesn't the intro state Trump's record low approval rating, as described in the body? Because it is a variable, and hardly one of the most important anythings about him.
 * Why doesn't it describe his record low rating among journalist fact-checkers, If you mean fact checking websites. Is his at a record low, a source for that please (and also again this would be variable).
 * Why doesn't it convey the Trump administration's record number of criminal indictments?, is it a record number it is lower then a number of presidents and may of the incitements listed are nothing to do directly with him.
 * Why is it silent on the record number of resignations under Trump, valid point, can any one give a good reason why not?Slatersteven (talk) 19:10, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "Because it is a variable, and hardly one of the most important anythings about him." Again, as has been pointed out numerous times, this just isn't true. His approval rating has been fairly stable, moving in the 37-45 range, which is below pretty much ANY president (except Gerald Ford) since approval ratings were a thing. And while it may not be the "most important thing" here, it most certainly is one of the most important things about his presidency. So at the very least it should be in that article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:27, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I would not say a 10 point difference if fairly stable (ohh and in January it was as low as 36, now up to 40 (WELL LAST TIME i CHECKED)). And again this is not the place to discus what we do on another article. And a number of presidents have had lower approval ratings, hardly therefore a record breaker.Slatersteven (talk) 09:51, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 8 point, not 10 point (45-37=8) and yes, that's pretty stable as the graphs on the link I provided illustrate. And no, it's not true that "a number of presidents have had lower approval ratings" (at least not at this point in their presidency). Only one that comes close is Gerald Ford. Did you even look at the source? Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:53, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Let’s remember that this article is a biography of Donald Trump. He has already lived a long and colorful and highly-reported life before becoming president, and we can’t let the lede act as if nothing else in his life mattered.


 * 1: Approval ratings: not even in the article as far as I can tell; way too transient to be mentioned in the lede. AFAIK polling results are never mentioned in the lede of a currently serving politician (see Justin Trudeau, Angela Merkel, etc.); there is usually some kind of summary in the lede for former presidents but Trump is not that. Maybe we could insert a link somewhere pointing to the highly detailed and current article Opinion polling on the Donald Trump administration.
 * 2 is discussed in the body in detail, in its own subsection “False statements”, and it is implied in the lede, in wording that has been repeatedly debated and consensus reached to do it exactly as it now is.
 * 3 - several of the indictments are mentioned in the Investigation section.
 * 4 is in the article, under Personnel.
 * I oppose adding any of these things to the lede. --MelanieN (talk) 19:11, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * All of the points raised have been addressed, no change is necessary until new developments occur. Same rationale as MelanieN. — JFG talk 19:51, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * the sources you are looking for are at Donald Trump for the record low approval ratings, and Donald Trump and Donald Trump for the worst fact-checking reviews in history. Yes, all of these facts are already in the body of the article. Why are these four record-breaking statistics among all presidents not worthy of inclusion in the introduction? EllenCT (talk) 23:58, 2 June 2018 (UTC)


 * The problem is that with Trump, far more than any President in my lifetime, new developments occur pretty much every day. Hopefully without offending his fans or critics, I think it's fair to say that he does an awful lot of things far removed what has historically been seen as normal for a President. HiLo48 (talk) 00:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)


 * No idea what your lifetime span entails, but I've been on this earth through 12 presidencies. Trust me, Trump is not unique in this. LBJ, from the moment he took office on through Nixon's inauguration in 1969, did a lot of things that were considered far removed from what was seen as normal (whatever "normal" is supposed to be).  There was something new with him almost continually.  Same with Nixon.  Same with Bush 43.  The Clinton presidency - and candidacy - had something new all the time that dominated the news.  And that's really the issue: the news.  We knew a lot about Clinton, especially during the second term.  The internet helped with that, didn't it?  And with Bush 43.  Which brings me to the obvious point: it's the presence of the internet and 24/7 news that makes it seem Trump is doing something continually that is controversial.  And let's be honest: media *is* biased against Trump, the "coverage" on him is continuous and continuously, overwhelmingly negative (see this Politio article from 2016  and this WaPo article from 2017 ).  Of course it seems as if Trump is constantly doing "stuff" because it's constantly in our faces and constantly negative (the numbers don't lie).  Just imagine what it would have been like had the internet and 24/7 news existed when LBJ and Nixon were president.  <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;">✉ ✓ 01:31, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not as old as you but I certainly lived through some of these. And it was NOTHING like this. A scandal or big news would occur once every six months or so. This crap happens everyday. This is like that other discussion we had where despite your longer years you were completely off about factual matters (I'm too lazy to find a link to that discussion but I'm sure you remember).Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:30, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * There's certainly far more drama than Obama or Bush43. It's comparable to Clinton, though due to the internet and the Twitter echo chamber (which Trump partakes in) its effect is stronger.  I'm not nearly old enough to remember LBJ. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 02:36, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I am posting my observations as a non-American. I stand by my comments from my perspective of a long way away. Maybe Twitter is the difference. Oh, I am not young. HiLo48 (talk) 03:03, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Winkelvi, if you honestly think it’s just the press coverage that makes Trump seem like an entirely new kind of president - well, I really don’t know what to say except that I disagree. Trump is so different from the “norm” in so many ways that no president in my lifetime has compared to him. Johnson, Nixon, Clinton, Bush - they at least mostly followed normal standards for behavior and actions of a president. Trump is something new. Just for starters: his continual attacks on the Justice Department and the FBI - what president, Republican or Democratic, has ever torn down the country’s law enforcement like that? His method for making policy decisions, apparently on impulse and without any input from, or even in opposition to, all his advisors. His wealth, and his secretiveness about how he got it; no president in memory has refused to show us his tax returns. His constant habit of lying - not the occasional exaggeration or twisting the truth like all politicians do, but simply stating as fact things that are false, and continuing to repeat them after they have been debunked; all the fact checkers (and thank God for them) say they can’t keep up, they have never seen any politician at any level with such habitual disregard for facts. These are not things that previous presidents did and we just didn’t have an internet to report them; they are a brand new approach to how to be president. And we have no idea how much further from the norm he is going to go. --MelanieN (talk) 03:24, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Noting that we are already in WP:FORUM territory, I'd like to correct one of the statements you just made: His method for making policy decisions, apparently on impulse and without any input from, or even in opposition to, all his advisors. From what I've seen since he took office, Trump takes lots of advice before making decisions, including listening to a broader set of stakeholders than just Washington officials and lobbyists. Despite the fear of impulsiveness that was prevalent upon his election, he has acted decisively yet calmly on many, many issues. He also knew to take steps backwards when it was necessary, so that the tango dance for example on North Korea is unlocking a situation that looked hopeless for decades. Observers are troubled by his "fire and fury" style, but when you ignore the noise and look at policy outcomes, the Trump presidency doesn't look all that different from any others. It is particularly remarkable given the hostility he had to face personally from his own party in addition to classic opposition. — JFG talk 05:52, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm stunned by what you have said in your reply to MelanieN. Forget about WP:FORUM issues for a second, because the very real problem here is that Trump has effectively created a new baseline for what is considered normal, so that even the most extraordinary actions he takes are somehow rationalized by normally sane editors. The result is that the normal, consensus-building approach to editing the article is dramatically skewed so that the "new neutral" is anything but neutral. Wikipedia editors with years of experience editing political articles are struggling to cope with this new landscape, much in the same was as journalists and fact checkers are. Trump DOESN'T take "lots of advice" at all. Trump DOESN'T act decisively, he acts RECKLESSLY. Trump DIDN'T "take a step back" from dealings with North Korea, he JUMPED to be first to cancel the summit before the North Koreans could. Trump's presidency looks COMPLETELY DIFFERENT to any presidency there has ever been! We now live in a world where EIGHT Benghazi investigations were "not enough" to get to the bottom of "Hilary Clinton's crimes" (of which there were NONE), but a SINGLE investigation of the links between Trump's campaign, shady foreign characters, and the state-sponsored subversion of the US election process are "too much", because "FAKE NEWS" blah blah blah. Think about how much time was spent on the four dead in Benghazi, compared to the four THOUSAND dead in Puerto Rico. There are just so many things wrong with Trump and his presidency right now that we run into UNDUE problems almost every day! Trump is CLEARLY the worst president in the history of American presidents for a whole host of reasons, but the "normalization" of his behavior has led to this article being a ludicrously deferential caricature of the man that just doesn't reflect reality. Normal editing is impossible! At this point, we may as well just cross the streams. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:19, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, we'll all get hatted or scolded in a few minutes, but in support of what Scjessey says, I think that WP editors, if we are to carry out our mandate of writing DUE WEIGHT summaries of the narratives presented in RS, must have a sound fundamental understanding of American history, law and politics and the functioning of governmental and civic processes in the United States. And for the good of this Project, WP cannot allow its editing process to be hamstrung and hog-tied by denial of fundamental fact and context, which ultimately gives rise to widespread denial of WP policies and guidelines to cram OR, UNDUE, SYNTH and other proscribed narratives into hundreds of articles. It's like giving out tickets for jaywalking while hit-and-run driving accidents are happening all around us. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 19:37, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your heartfelt comments. I would certainly agree that Trump has set up a "new normal" in U.S. political discourse which was unthinkable in this country for decades. And indeed, his daily rejection of polite talk, established conventions or "political correctness" are key reasons why he was elected. For every American despising him, there is another American praising him, welcome to democracy. In addition, the relentless streams of unfiltered information in our connected era tend to amplify daily news and magnify emotional responses, which makes it harder to write sober encyclopedic prose. Despite this, and perhaps because of this, we can and must remain neutral. As Jimbo noted, editors who are too emotional about this president should abstain from digging their heels in entrenched positions and turning the encyclopedic work into a battlefield.
 * "For every American despising him, there is another American praising him" - again, not true. More like for every two Americans despising him there is one American praising him (maybe even 3:1, if you account for the fact that a lot of people who voted for him did so out of party loyalty or simply "against Hillary", not enthusiastically).Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:51, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note that a Trump-like bluntness may be new to the U.S., especially to the younger generation there, but I am reminded of other leaders from the past few decades whose words and deeds were positively horrifying to a large fraction of their constituents: General Charles de Gaulle in France, Margaret Thatcher in the U.K., or more recently, Christoph Blocher in Switzerland. Even Ronald Reagan was mocked and ridiculed as an incompetent B-class actor when he took office. The Trump presidency is still young, however I can't help but notice that most of the dire predictions of gloom and doom have not come to pass. For the sake of the United States and the rest of the world, I am hopeful that the anger will subsume (on both sides) and that the country will prosper. — JFG talk 20:28, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you're suffering from selective memory. A lot of that anger is reaction to people drawing intelligent-sounding equivalences between the likes of leaders like De Gaulle, Thatcher, and Reagan and a grown man who boasted about his ability to grab women by the pussy. A lot of people feel that should immediately disqualify any man for the U.S. presidency, regardless of his party or political platform. A lot of people think real men don't talk like that or think like that. I'm one of them, I'm proud to say. No sidestepping, pleaseshow me one quote demonstrating such a lack of moral character from any of those three, or concede that no equivalence actually exists. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:04, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * De Gaulle and Thatcher had great moral standing and cannot be compared to a pussy-grabber (although they were called immoral by their political opponents). But if we're talking about sexual mores and habitual lying, we could look at François Mitterrand who a) kept his mistress and illegitimate child at the Élysée Palace all along his presidency while silencing the press (the affair was only revealed after his second presidency and close to his death) and letting taxpayers foot the bill for security, and b) lied to the French people about his medical reports, hiding a serious form of cancer that he carried for most of his time in office, bullied his personal doctor with death threats from the secret service, and had said doctor's book seized and all copies physically destroyed in 1995, even after the secret was out. In spite of all this, he is still considered one of the greatest presidents of the modern French Republic. Oh, Mitterrand also collaborated with Nazis during the war, faked his own assassination, wiretapped journalists and actresses, and drove one of his Prime Ministers to suicide while blaming the press. Yeah, tell me about morals; Trump's antics are not all that exceptional. — JFG talk 04:41, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Aside from being a classic case of Whataboutism, this description of Mitterrand is also (mostly) some fake ass news. If Mitterrand was alive it would be a BLP vio.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * None of these other people you mention were that far out of the "norm" already expected in their respected countries. I'm talking about a comparison between Trump and other US presidents. Things he's done that would normally receive whole sections in the articles of other presidents have been whittled down to single sentences, or omitted entirely, because there simply isn't enough space to document it all. We're talking about Silvio Berlusconi levels of behavior, coupled with Putin levels of corruption and Robert Mugabe levels of moral turpitude. As for your comment about "emotional editors" not participating, at this point we are all emotional. -- Scjessey (talk) 10:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "if you honestly think it’s just the press coverage that makes Trump seem like an entirely new kind of president", I never said anything of the kind. I was responding to HiLo's comments, "with Trump, far more than any President in my lifetime, new developments occur pretty much every day".  Never mentioned the type of man or president Trump is in comparison with the others preceding him.  HiLo's comments were in regard to the developments we are made aware of, I responded to that very topic.  Can't imagine how you thought otherwise.  <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;">✉ ✓ 06:01, 3 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Ellen, there are a lot of things about him that are unique. We mention several of them in the lede: oldest, wealthiest, etc. There are others that we hint at. There are others that we don’t mention at this point; maybe their significance will become clearer in hindsight (after all we don’t know how his presidency is going to turn out) and will be added to the lede then. This is a very long article, the biography of a very full life; the lede is for summarizing the most important points; for now, the things you want to add to the lede do not seem to have achieved consensus that they belong there. --MelanieN (talk) 03:23, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that the fullness of his life somehow diminishes the noteworthiness of his record statistics among US presidents? EllenCT (talk) 14:40, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm hard pressed to see that POTUS has had an especially "full life", but at any rate I don't think these articles are going to achieve stable excellent form until there are plenty of tertiary sources that analyze and recount the news developments and establish due weight. There are already many such sources about Trump's life -- well researched books, e.g. and it's distressing to see some -- like the acclaimed book for which the authors painstakingly interviewed Trump's Penn classmates and researched contemporaneous publications -- dismissed out of hand as if they were tabloid screeds. But there are many other books, and we should step back from the daily developments from time to time and fold in their narratives and characterizations of POTUS. I suspect you could find lots of under-represented information, well documented and verifiable in such sources. And it would be very hard for WP editors to argue against including the most prominent and noteworthy of it. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 20:36, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "Indictments" number seem overly broad. There are no ties between the russian nationalist hacker indictments and Trump. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:16e:3d22:c76d:817f:9403 (talk) 09:20, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * A web search on "ties between the russian nationalist hacker indictments and Trump" yeilds these top hits: "Here are members of Team Trump who are known to have Russian connections and the story lines that have made those ties relevant", our article Links between Trump associates and Russian officials, and, "the really juicy information to emerge Monday involved the confessions of George Papadopoulos, a former Trump campaign adviser who pleaded guilty this month to lying to federal investigators about his contacts with figures he thought had links to the Russian government. One of these contacts included an April 2016 exchange with a foreign professor with Russian affiliations who claimed the Kremlin had "dirt" on Hillary Clinton". But why is this an issue? I proposed that the introduction describe the record number of indictments (and record low approval, record low honesty, and record high resignations) not anything about the Russians, yet. EllenCT (talk) 14:35, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The issue is that most of the Mueller indictments are totally unrelated to Donald Trump as a BLP subject here. They are side effects of the investigation into Russian interference, which uncovered prior crimes and some lies to investigators. See the above thread for a more detailed reasoning. — JFG talk 21:04, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "Some lies to investigators" are crimes relating to their service to and affiliation with Trump. In the USA it's a crime to lie to the Feds, to banks, to government agencies, etc. etc. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 02:38, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That is correct. And it's also correct that none of the Trump-related people were indicted for anything they did in relation with Russia, only Papadopoulos and Flynn for what they said, or rather omitted to say. Nobody linked to Trump was indicted for attempting to manipulate the election with the help of the Kremlin. — JFG talk 04:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yet all of these people were part of the Trump campaign. "Oh, yes, Trump campaign people were indicted, but look they were indicted for THIS crime, not for THAT crime, so that makes it ok!" How does that make any sense? Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:02, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I have too much respect for your sense of logic to spell it out for you. — JFG talk 15:53, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

RFC on record low approval, dishonesty, indictments, and resignations
Should Trump's (a) record low approval rating, (b) record low rating by fact-checkers, and (c) his administration's record number of criminal indictments and (d) resignations be included in the introduction? 23:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes to all as proposer, per above. EllenCT (talk) 23:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * This should be done as three separate proposals, because I support the first and oppose the others, and combinations like this here will make discussion a pain. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 23:04, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Three or four? I added (a), (b), (c), and (d) per a suggestion on my talk page. EllenCT (talk) 23:28, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Procedural oppose. First, batching all of these together is a recipe for disaster.  Second, please suggest specific wording.  If this isn't WP:SNOW closed, I'll likely oppose most of this on the merits. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 23:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)  the updated version will do for voting. power~enwiki ( π ,  ν ) 23:34, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Procedural oppose suggested by seems most sensible to me for this immediate one. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 23:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Here is the specific wording I propose:
 * Trump has [a] the lowest approval of any US president since approval ratings have been measured and [b] has made a record number of false statements according to fact-checking organizations. [c] More of his administration's officials have been indicted and [d] more of them have resigned, than in any other presidency.
 * The proposed sources are those linked to in the enclosing section above. EllenCT (talk) 23:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Ellen: You are, of course, free to offer an RfC if you want, but this has already been the subject of a lengthy informal discussion, and the comments from it will need to be taken into account somehow. We can’t just reset and start over, because it’s unreasonable to expect people to have to keep coming back to the board and repeating their answer over and over. This revised a-b-c-d format might work, particularly if people can say “as per my comments above”, rather than repeating their whole rationale. --MelanieN (talk) 23:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not lede worthy on a BLP of the entire man's life so far.--MONGO 23:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose all four, as not important enough for the lede, which should summarize only the MOST important material from the article. My further comments on this point are in the section above. Additionally oppose (c) because it is not in the article, and the referenced source does not actually support the assertion. --MelanieN (talk) 23:47, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I believe the first part is probably worthy of mention, but what has been proposed is not the correct way to present it. The other two aren't important. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 00:10, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per MONGO. <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;">✉ ✓ 00:20, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Not significant enough to include in the lead section of a BLP. Meatsgains (<b style="color:#5F9EA0">talk</b>) 02:21, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - contrary to BLP and LEAD -- just not a major action or event to his life nor any significant effect, and minor note factually incorrect. For perspective, compare these to something like an impeachment which should go in lead.    Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:09, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Makes for interesting trivia but not significant enough to be included in the lead. --Hyperinsomniac (talk) 04:46, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per arguments laid out by several editors in the extensive discussion above. OP should have recognized from said discussion that her proposal was not supported, and refrained from opening a doomed RfC. Suggest a WP:SNOW close by an admin. — JFG talk 09:20, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per all the above reasons. Keep in mind that this is not the article Presidency of Donald Trump. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:22, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I'm not necessarily objecting to the content, but conflation of this nature is essentially editorializing and synthy. I think a snowball closure of this RfC should be considered, because this has attractive universal opposition. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:04, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

RFC extended discussion
Throwing this outside the !voting area. (A) as written I still feel is straight-up false; he may have the lowest first-year approval ratings, or it may be the most polarized approval ratings (a recent poll said his same-party approval was one of the highest; possibly due to anti-Trump Republicans declaring themselves independents). (B) could be a good replacement for the His campaign received extensive free media coverage; many of his public statements were controversial or false. sentence, which is clearly a compromise. Regarding (C), are all the indictments related to the Russia stuff? If so, it should go somewhere in the existing paragraph, which is also starting to suffer from a large number of modifications. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 23:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Re (a), for many months the article has stated, "Presidential approval polls taken during the first ten months of Trump's term have shown him to be the least popular U.S. president in the history of modern opinion polls." Re (c) all seventeen of the people who have been indicted or pled guilty have been associated with Russian interference in the election, but some of their specific charges are unrelated to it, having to do with money laundering or making false statements on forms. EllenCT (talk) 23:54, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Another reason why (c) should not be included is that as worded it is not accurate. You propose to say More of his administration's officials have been indicted but that is not correct. Actually only one of the indicted people was an “official in his administration”; three others were associated with his campaign; the rest (the California man, the Dutch guy, and all the Russians) were neither.--MelanieN (talk) 00:04, 5 June 2018 (UTC)


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

Lead control
Floating a radical idea.

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

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

Forgive my venial sin of quantification, but some kind of discipline like this seems the most (only?) practical way to keep the lead of this biography at a reasonable size and prevent it from being completely overwhelmed by his presidency. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:38, 5 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Approaching this from another direction, it seems to me that this bio article contains altogether too much play-by-play from his Presidency and that it would benefit from a ruthless trimming of material that rightly belongs only in his Presidency or other politics-related articles. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 21:50, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The hard part is getting consensus on what should stay and what should go. But I'm willing to work on it. — JFG talk 21:56, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I share your concerns about excess detail, but I prefer to let things ebb and flow organically. The lede has been pretty stable in length over the last couple years. No worries. And let's face it: Trump's campaign and presidency may only represent 5% of his time on this Earth, but it's easily 80% of the attention he is getting. His prior life as a real-estate magnate cum playboy is not all that encyclopedic. — JFG talk 21:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC)


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

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

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