Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 87

Trump administration and the family separation policy
I think we need a brief paragraph about Trump administration family separation policy, probably under Presidency>Domestic policy>Immigration. The great southern border wall has disappeared from the zeitgeist, replaced by images of children separated from their parentssome lost in the system, some in cages, others wrapped in foil like baked potatoes. Thoughts?- MrX 🖋 11:22, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe in the Presidency article though it would allow us to clear up some points such as "On Sunday, the facility was holding 751 family members and 258 youth. The facility was divided into separate wings: one for unaccompanied children, one for adults, and one for mothers and fathers with children." from your new link above. Why does anyone think the children are separated? If a person is violating federal law and returning illegally after being deported, then they are subject to felony prosecution and children cannot be housed with adults facing such prosecution. Also...baked potatoes? Ever see a space blanket?--MONGO 11:33, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * - MrX 🖋 12:05, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course they're separated. Even Kellyanne Conway used this language. O3000 (talk) 12:13, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes they are...and this belongs in the Presidency article if anywhere. As DHS chief Nielsen said "this is not policy" (to separate children from their parents) its just an end result of the zero tolerance policy as opposed to the ineffective catch and release policy. You cannot house minors with adults facing felony prosecution.MONGO 12:17, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I don’t understand the distinction between policy and end result of a recent policy. Definitely belongs in the presidency article. Probably requires a sentence or two here as immigration is discussed in this article. O3000 (talk) 12:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * This is not new at all...the press just seized it for headlines. Did everyone forget that in 2014 we had unaccompanied minors housed in chain linked fenced areas in abandoned warehouses and had foil (space blankets) issued? As show here? If laws are broken even by US citizens, does anyone think the children will await trial or serve out period of incarceration along with their parents? Children even then are placed in foster care if no adult relative can care for the child.MONGO 12:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It's new. Specifically, it came into existence on April 6th, 2018, when Sessions and Trump specifically announced a policy change (with other members of the administration stating explicitly that this was intended to purposefully traumatize families to act as a "deterrent").Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:08, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, blaming it on the press is unconvincing. We use RS, and coverage is extensive. Even two Republican presidential wives have provided unsolicited comments. O3000 (talk) 12:44, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * - MrX 🖋 12:05, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course they're separated. Even Kellyanne Conway used this language. O3000 (talk) 12:13, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes they are...and this belongs in the Presidency article if anywhere. As DHS chief Nielsen said "this is not policy" (to separate children from their parents) its just an end result of the zero tolerance policy as opposed to the ineffective catch and release policy. You cannot house minors with adults facing felony prosecution.MONGO 12:17, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I don’t understand the distinction between policy and end result of a recent policy. Definitely belongs in the presidency article. Probably requires a sentence or two here as immigration is discussed in this article. O3000 (talk) 12:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * This is not new at all...the press just seized it for headlines. Did everyone forget that in 2014 we had unaccompanied minors housed in chain linked fenced areas in abandoned warehouses and had foil (space blankets) issued? As show here? If laws are broken even by US citizens, does anyone think the children will await trial or serve out period of incarceration along with their parents? Children even then are placed in foster care if no adult relative can care for the child.MONGO 12:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It's new. Specifically, it came into existence on April 6th, 2018, when Sessions and Trump specifically announced a policy change (with other members of the administration stating explicitly that this was intended to purposefully traumatize families to act as a "deterrent").Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:08, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, blaming it on the press is unconvincing. We use RS, and coverage is extensive. Even two Republican presidential wives have provided unsolicited comments. O3000 (talk) 12:44, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, blaming it on the press is unconvincing. We use RS, and coverage is extensive. Even two Republican presidential wives have provided unsolicited comments. O3000 (talk) 12:44, 18 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Can we please stop blaming sources for reporting significant news? Also, can we stay focused on noteworthy content for this article, not past president's articles? Thanks. - MrX 🖋 12:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Discuss the politics of and media spin of the whole thing at the presidential page where it would be appropriate to quibble about it. The issue barely deserves a mention in this article and certainly shouldn't take up so many bytes here. -- ψλ  ● ✉ ✓ 12:58, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The ongoing pattern of racial, religious, and ethnic discrimination and political pandering to white separatists and other elements of Trump's political "base" is a key fact of his life. It has long roots and has been extensively discussed by RS. This biography needs to reflect these RS facts and narratives about him. This article is full of trivia and Trump media posturing, but it fails to present a coherent NPOV picture of its subject.  SPECIFICO talk 13:07, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * above in another thread and are now lecturing on religious and other discrimination.  Priceless. -- ψλ  ● ✉ ✓ 13:36, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Please stop making personal attacks and stop derailing discussions with this childish hair pulling.- MrX 🖋 13:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * media spin If you have a problem with RS, take it to RS/N. O3000 (talk) 13:10, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * , don't remove comments you dislike and dishonestly refer to them as personal attacks just so you can get around policy on WP:TPG. Did you, or did you not, write the following with zero explanation and no qualification? "the unwashed Hasidic Jews of Brooklyn who read that paper are dumb enough to think that a facile and unintelligible statement by a politician will win him their support"  If anyone else had written it, say for instance someone you perceive to be Conservative/Republican/Libertarian, you would have been all over them, taking them to AN/I or probably submitting an Arb enforcement request, demanding they be blocked - probably indefinitely.  The truth is, what you wrote is anti-Semitic in nature.  Now, if you did it without realizing how it would be seen as an insensitive racial slur, I can accept that.  But you have not once said you made a mistake in posting it without further explanation.  You've only made reference to where the terminology comes from - and in my book, that's not good enough.  Why?  Because I know you and several others who follow your lead would be having a heyday over anyone in the group you see as your wiki-enemies writing the exact same thing.  This is the last time I will mention this incident on this talk page, but it's not the last time I'm going to mention it altogether.  If you admit your error and sincerely apologize for offending with what you wrote, that would go a long way toward making this right.  Deleting talk page comments as personal attacks, though... that's not the right way to deal with those very offensive comments.  -- ψλ  ● ✉ ✓ 14:35, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Do you have a diff to that? Sir Joseph (talk) 14:36, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I found the DIFF. I am shocked that it's still there and shocked that SPECIFICO didn't apologize. Here is the diff and I would hope that SPECIFICO's "allies" would repudiate that post. In my opinion, that comment is block worthy. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:48, 18 June 2018 (UTC)


 * HmmmI'm sure it's being discussed there as well. Can you cite any policy-based reasons for not wanting to include a significant Trump policy in this Trump article, keeping in mind that this article already includes policy material on energy, climate, deregulation, Cuba(?!), Iran, Israel, North Korea, Russia, Afghanistan, ISIS, Syria, Tax cuts, Keystone XL, border wall, DACA, NAFTA, TPP, WTO, LMNOP...? SMirC-scream.svg Phew! sorry, I ran out of breath there. - MrX 🖋 13:11, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The reliable sources also indicate this is not new and is not policy. The only difference is the Trump administration is upholding federal law and the previous ones did not. Wording would have to include something along the lines of "a more rigorous enforcement of federal immigration laws led to an increase in family separations which were criticized by both Democrats and Republicans." I think even that would belong in the Presidency article but it would reflect the facts as well as sources since this is not a new thing, just an escalation.MONGO 13:18, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You haven't cited a single reliable source to support your argument; I've cited eight. This enhanced enforcement has been compared to Japanese internment during WWII (the big one). That's the important takeaway, not some diversion about upholding federal law.- MrX 🖋 13:24, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * MrX one of your own sources, that of the DHS chief speaking where she said this is Not Policy you forget that one? I did cite the CNN story from 2014 or did you not see it?MONGO 14:00, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That’s simply a claim by the administration. O3000 (talk) 14:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * And ironically, it's a claim by the same person who testified in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee trying to provide cover for Trump during shithole-gate. She is not credible. - MrX 🖋 14:20, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You provided the reference, not I. Now cause it doesn't fit the narrative its not reliable? How odd.MONGO 15:44, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I never said the source was not reliable; I said Nielsen is not credible and I backed it with sources, like this one.- MrX 🖋 17:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Associated Press: "This pressure is coming as White House officials have tried to distance themselves from the policy. Trump blames Democrats falsely for the situation. The administration put the policy in place and could easily end it after it has led to a spike in cases of split and distraught families." zzz (talk) 13:27, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "The reliable sources also indicate this is not new and is not policy." Utterly false. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:38, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Not new. See 1997 Flores Settlement Agreement and the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007.
 * Not Trump Administration policy. Happened during Clinton and then Bush.
 * The Trump Administration policy is merely to enforce the law still and currently in place. If legislators don't like the law, they have the power, collectively, to change it.  -- ψλ  ● ✉ ✓ 13:48, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * BS.
 * "Not new. See 1997 Flores Settlement Agreement and the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007." - BS. the Flores Agreement says nothing about separating children from their parents.
 * "Not Trump Administration policy. Happened during Clinton and then Bush." - BS. No, it did not "happen during Clinton and then Bush" (you forgot "but Obama!" in there). Yes children were detained, but these were unaccompanied children, not families being broken up, mothers having their kids taken away "to give them a bath" then being told "your family is over, you'll never see your kids again".
 * "The Trump Administration policy is merely to enforce the law still and currently in place. " - BS. The law was being enforced all these years without having to resort to child abuse. The law says nothing about separating families. The entire thing started on April 6th, when Sessions announced a new policy.
 * You're trying to excuse the inexcusable and should really reevaluate what kind of a person you want to be.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)


 * OR/SYNTH. Let's use RS. O3000 (talk) 13:52, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't confuse laws with (enforcement) policies. They are different. As I cited from the Chicago Tribune, "Trump has falsely blamed the separations on a law he said was written by Democrats." - MrX 🖋 13:55, 18 June 2018 (UTC)


 * When any adminstration other than the Trump’s does anything the media portrays as negative, the reasons for exclusion resonate except as it applies to Trump. How can anyone not see that bias is a factor? SMirC-unnerved.svg Why does this remind me of the Comey double-standard?  Laws are laws - enforcement of those laws has obviously become politicized and sensationalized by clickbait media, most of which are proven to be 90% negative toward Trump. Ironically, some of the very same media who attempted to circulate images of children in fenced cages, blamed Trump when the images were actually from the Obama administration. Nancy Pelosi is heading south to check out the conditions asylum seekers are being housed. It’s about time - maybe Congress will enact new immigration laws as a result. In the interim, enough already with the back and forth here, all of which is based on biased media reporting to appeal to human compassion (more like propaganda), none of which to date is supported by factual evidence, and none of it focuses on the current law - which is an enumerated power granted only to Congress and is the responsibility of the departments within the (DOJ) to enforce.  For Pete’s sake, some of the top members of the DOJ are currently under criminal investigation, and Trump is taking the rap for that, too. If he tries to correct the problems within the DOJ, his efforts will likely be sensationalized negatively by the media as interference with the Russian collusion investigation. SMirC-dunno.svg


 * Bottomline, if we do include any of this material, it has to be in a dispassionate tone, avoiding SOAPBOX by basing it entirely on the facts - not opinions - and with careful adherence to NPOV, particularly WEIGHT & BALANCE. Yes, from a human perspective it is sad, NO it is not Trump’s fault - this problem is the result of laws passed by Congress and signed into law by prior presidents. Material about immigration actually belongs in a US immigration article - not in the Trump bio simply because the biased media wants to blame Trump for everything, including the mistakes of prior admins. Oh, and ask yourselves honestly if we allow such material in the Trump BLP, are we going to include the related information in the Bush & Obama administrations where the problems began and were not properly handled, especially considering they should be considered equally at fault? If the answer to that question is no, then leave it out of this article. Atsme 📞📧 15:15, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Recent behavior at this article
I haven’t been online much the past few days. But it looks like things got way out of control on the main article here yesterday, where the passions on this talk page spilled over onto the main page. It started when MrX decided to go ahead and add the “family separation” material to the article even though it was still being discussed on the talk page. Then there were a couple of reversions, to the point where an administrator had to step in to prevent an edit war. And then people started adding and reverting family separation links and NPOV tags. This kind of public arguing is not appropriate for any Wikipedia article but especially one as heavily viewed as this one. Let’s all take a step back and recommit to the Wikipedia principles that need to guide us here:
 * Consensus is our rule here. No matter how strongly you feel about something, it requires consensus to go in the article. In highly disputed or closely divided discussions like family separation, no one can just arbitrarily decide that consensus agrees with them and take action on that belief. If they do, the inevitable result will be what happened yesterday.
 * Don’t tag the whole article as NPOV just because you feel that some one item should, or should not, be included. That’s just continuing the edit war under another guise.
 * Respect other editors’ viewpoints even if you disagree with them, and stay civil.
 * Here on the talk page, I notice the passions about one topic are spilling over into other topics - a type of WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, “If we aren’t going to have X in the lede then we shouldn’t have Y either.” There’s no rule against that kind of argument but it doesn’t really address the issue under discussion.

This is one of our most highly viewed articles. Some of us have strong feelings about the subject, but we all want it to be good encyclopedic material informative to our readers. Let’s please keep our behavior within bounds and keep our disagreements limited to the talk page, not the main page. --MelanieN (talk) 17:35, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks MelanieN. One thing that's troubled many of us recently is the knee-jerk blanket reverts of new material, often after discussion on talk and reasonable expectation that it was uncontroversial. This tactic causes the DS to work in unintended ways and to give predatory reverters veto power over the large number of collaborators here. I hope I worded that diplomatically enough for this page.  SPECIFICO talk 18:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, MelanieN, thank you once again for portraying me as the bad guy who started the fracas, while omitting that I started the discussion and that the discussion was leaning toward inclusion before I made a WP:BOLD edit in accord with Wikipedia's foundational principles.- MrX 🖋 18:37, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * MrX, it's probably wise to not exercise BOLD with articles that under DS restrictions. SPECIFICO - can you provide diffs for the knee jerk reverts to which you are referring? Atsme 📞📧 18:43, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * probably wise to not exercise BOLD - Bears a bit of clarification. BOLD itself is fine. TP consensus is not required unless the BOLD is disputed/challenged. This kind of BOLD is not fine. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:09, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Unless you're suggesting that my edit was reckless, your opinion is not grounded in policy.- MrX 🖋 19:20, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * MrX, at an article under the remedies we need to wait until there is consensus, not until (we perceive that) a discussion is "leaning". If you get to do it, everybody else gets to do it, too, and you will often strongly disagree with their perception and judgment. At that point, we're off and running and the added order that the remedies seek to achieve pretty much breaks down. Things move slower under the remedies, and that's not a bad thing. I walked away from a recent discussion because of your editing during a 6-hour-old discussion in which there was anything but a consensus. Unlike SPECIFICO I'll refrain from speaking for "many of us" without evidence, but I find that extremely frustrating. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:58, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree. WP:BOLD did not go out of fashion when DS came into play. DS was a direct result of a handful of editors gaming the system, edit warring, forum shopping, attacking other editors, stonewalling, and filibusteringmany behaviors that persist in spite of the threat of sanctions. I support anyone, at anytime, at any article who makes a constructive WP:BOLD edit in good faith. I don't know what you're referring to when you say you "walked away", but it sounds like you have an issue with bold editing or perhaps the world is moving too fast for you.- MrX 🖋 19:15, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * As I indicated above, I have no problem with an initial BOLD edit to content not currently under discussion. It would be absurd to require prior TP consensus for everything. That is not what we're discussing here. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:22, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I haven't reviewed the edit war yet and this thread is my first introduction to whatever happened yesterday. I didn't read MelanieN's initial post as portraying you as "the bad guy". ~Awilley (talk) 04:40, 20 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I also wanted to add that violated DS a couple hours ago too. I posted a warning on his talk page, and then he removed my warning (which he is allowed to do) with the edit summary "you're the one who broke DS by violating 1RR. I did not violate DS" and then he posted a warning on my user talk page with the comment "The article is under 1RR protection. You made two reverts. Here's your chance to self revert. And no, I did not violate DS". He did violate DS: he added a NPOV tag had already been added to the article here. I contested the addition of the tag, and then he added it again. So I gave him a last warning. L293D (<b style="color:#000">☎</b> • <b style="color:#000">✎</b>) 19:13, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:AE is thataway.→→→ By the way, you violated 1RR so it's a wash. - MrX 🖋 19:16, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah? Where? I was enforcing DS with my second revert. <b style="color:#060">L293D</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b> • <b style="color:#000">✎</b>) 19:18, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not how it works. You not the enforcer of DS. If you don't believe me, try your luck at AE. Also, you don't have to ping me when I'm obviously actively engaged in the discussion.- MrX 🖋 19:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Once again? So you have made a habit of this kind of thing, have you, and gotten called out on it before? (Sorry, I don't keep scoresheets.) I disagree with your application of BOLD to items that are under still-unresolved discussion. The suggested pattern is bold-revert-discuss. If the discussion is already going on and is unresolved (even if you perceive it as "leaning" your way), boldly implementing one side of the discussion is only going to lead to problems, as it did this time. --MelanieN (talk) 19:35, 19 June 2018 (UTC) And BTW, the word "clear" has not been used here; any consensus would be enough. One editor's perception of the way a discussion is "leaning" is not a consensus of any kind. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:32, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, it seems you have made a habit of calling me out for it. If you folks want to change Wikipedia's policies, you're welcome to make a proposal at the appropriate venue. Bold editing is still a core principle. You're also welcome to inquire at WP:ARCA if you think that WP:ARBAPDS intended to change that. - MrX 🖋 19:48, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The admin who reverted you said he was taking an “AE action to enforce consensus required.” That sounds like he did not agree with your bold edit. Shall we ping him here to ask for his interpretation of how the WP:BOLD guideline (which btw is a guideline, not a "core principle") applies to issues under discussion? --MelanieN (talk) 20:49, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Now you're just making things up. An admin reverted Bastun, not me. MONGO reverted me. There is no current editing restriction on bold editing and I would be aghast if there were.- MrX 🖋 21:10, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The edit he reverted was the material you had inserted (after MONGO removed it and Bastun reinstated it). I guess we do need to ask User:NeilN what the rules are about bold editing on subjects which are under current discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 21:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Remedies bullet 1 excerpt: "All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). This includes making edits similar to the ones that have been challenged." I haven't conducted an exhaustive search but I haven't found an edit challenged by reversion that is similar to MrX's edit. "Similar" would be reasonably interpreted as anything intersecting or overlapping MrX's edit. If such an edit exists, this is open-and-shut, so it would be very helpful if someone more familiar would locate the edit and link it here. If one does not exist, MrX did not violate the letter, and we're left with strong disagreement as to whether he violated the spirit and intent (Pillar 5 excerpt: "The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording"). In the latter case I think a trip to ARCA is needed; else we'll never see the end of this. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:29, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Right. I challenged MrX's edit by reversion and clearly stated to start an Rfc which he did.--MONGO 21:34, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Diffs please. For clarity, we need the initial BOLD, the challenge, and the vio. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:35, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It was an edit by MrX here and I challenged it here. I do not know anything about a vio in regards to this matter.--MONGO 21:52, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Its all in the history since yesterday. Bastun then reverted me and Signedzzz added into that but then NeilN came and restored it to my challenge version.--MONGO 21:57, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Right, no vio of the letter of the remedies, so ARCA it is. NeilN's opinion might put an end to this immediate dispute, but I don't think it would be very effective to link to that diff for future disputes of this type. The remedies could be clarified on this point with just a few additional words. It's unfortunate that process has to be codified to such a degree, but it beats the alternative. There is too much work to be done to continue spending half of our time arguing about process. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:13, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Nothing is stopping MrX from being bold that I am aware of. One might think that waiting for a clear consensus would be best but he is not policy bound to do so.--MONGO 22:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand that. The question at hand is whether it would benefit the article if he were ArbCom bound to do so. And not just him by any means, but everybody else too; I am firmly focused on the larger picture, not one editor's behavior in one incident. I believe it would, and MelanieN believes it would.
 * Bear in mind there was no open Rfc on the edits he added. That was started after I challenged his edit. Traditionally an Rfc is hopefully closed by an uninvolved admin but that wouldn't apply in this case anyway.--MONGO 22:35, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Also BTW, the principle of "don't edit while under discussion" is hardly limited to this article, or to articles under ArbCom remedies. I see it all the time at ordinary articles. Apparently a large number of experienced editors feel that it serves to help keep things orderly and avoid edit warring. Consensus first, then edit. Others feel that it's useful to discuss and edit concurrently, but I fail to see the point when the end result is the same. There is no hurry to get changes into an article, especially changes that may be further modified in a matter of hours. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:51, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I am in complete agreement with MelanieN's wise words at the beginning of this thread, and recommend that all editors active on this article to take her advice. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  22:03, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for you recommendation, but let's dig a bit deeper. MelanieN has strongly implied that my bold edit caused a two day cascade of bad behavior. That doesn't bear scrutiny. Then she doubled down by falsely claiming that I was reverted as an AE action. Facts matter. If there is a new editing restriction that prohibits bold edits, then it needs to be written where everyone can see it. For my part, I would challenge such a restriction at ARCA. I'm pretty sure I could show numerous occasions where editors have made similar bold edits in this article. Some were reverted; some were retained; no one got hurt. If you admins want to help, how about dealing with the sock puppets, gaming, and CIR issues rife in this article? You see, the problem isn't bold editing. It's all of the other bad faith editing and disruption that interferes with collaborative dispute resolution. NeilN has been on point, and has done an exemplary job, but I'm sure he could use some help.- MrX 🖋 22:48, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I really shouldn't be the only admin who dictates process here but I doubt Arbcom is going to draft up wording around what BOLD editing is and is not and when it can be used. As with anything not dealing with straight-up reverts, much depends on the situation. To keep things sane (well, as sane as possible) for both editors and admins, I rely on "this includes making edits similar to the ones that have been challenged". So, for example, if material has challenged as being not important enough for the body, and someone, being bold, adds a summation to the lead, I would take that as violating consensus-required. But if material was being challenged as not important enough for the lead, and someone, being bold, added new material to the body that bolstered the importance then I would probably be okay with that. It would be up to editors to challenge that material. And lest anyone get ideas, adding new material when restoring old, challenged material is still a violation of consensus-required. Unless Mandruss' "few additional words" can address a myriad of situations, we'll have to use the edit-challenge mechanism. Please note that a part of the community is already shaking their heads at all the restrictions and wondering why "a pox on both their houses" solution hasn't been implemented. I'd rather see editors passionate and knowledgeable in the area actually editing in the area with the inevitable disruption caused by conflict holding at manageable levels but that choice isn't solely mine to make. If I was editing in this area, I would follow the same practice I use when I edit policies/guidelines/templates - always propose changes on the talk page first and see if there's feedback. This often helps with buy-in as editors are less likely to reflexively revert if they've been given a chance to provide input. However I realize that "edit the page and see what sticks" is also very much in the Wikipedia spirit - just don't know how effective a technique it is here, though. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 23:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Is "content is under discussion" a legitimate reason for challenge requiring consensus under bullet 1? If so, we have no problem except for the wasted two edits. There will usually be at least one editor around who believes we should have consensus first as a matter of principle, has a 1R, and is willing to spend it. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:52, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not exactly sure what you're asking here. If you're asking can an editor challenge an edit and invoke consensus-required by reverting and saying the material is under discussion then the answer is yes. However see my post below. The reverting editor should ideally also participate in the discussion. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 12:35, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The reverting editor should ideally also participate in the discussion. Well I have to disagree with that part. An editor not involved in that particular discussion is more likely to be reverting on process principle rather than as a weapon in a content dispute, and an "involved" revert will often raise the discussion's temperature a little more than an "uninvolved" one. "Uninvolved" is a generally good thing in all kinds of applications (I see this as roughly equivalent to hatting part of a discussion, for example"uninvolved" is not required, but it helps). And, if it were limited to those involved, the number of editors who had a 1R and were willing to spend it would be significantly reduced. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:45, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I think "hatting" is already overused (just my opinion) and I fail to see how "participation" in discussion can ever be a bad thing—whether an editor is "involved" or "uninvolved". In my opinion we all tend to be "involved" even if only to a small degree. Circumstances and various personal abilities allow for the appearance of a lesser degree of involvedness but in many instances an opinion is held even by those not particularly "involved". Bus stop (talk) 15:07, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

When an editor blanket reverts an entire paragraph or more, such as has been done with content MelanieN has thoughtfully written and inserted in the article, that reverting editor cannot claim it's a good faith revert without stating in detail the problems they identified that led them to reject a colleague's work in toto. We have more than one editor here who simply and serially revert entire sections of content with meaningless edit summaries like "remove talking point du jour" or "controversy of the day". This is passive aggressive obstruction and it deters serious NPOV editors from contributing their time here. I think any such unexplained revert should be reversed on sight, exempt from the "consensus required" rule. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 01:38, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * SPECIFICO, I don't think you're going to get much agreement for that suggestion. New material can be challenged; consensus-required is not waived just because you don't think their edit summary is adequate. --MelanieN (talk) 02:06, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If the reverting editor were to proceed to the talk page to explain the reason for their revert, with detail, policy concerns, or alternative proposals, that would be constructive per BRD. When we repeatedly see the same flip "no" and a dismissive revert of an entire section, that does not help improve the article and it does not foster a collaborative workplace here. I hope that is clearer. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 11:00, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I personally call these "hit-and-run reverts" and had to deal with an instance of these here. Consensus-required still stands as states but that pattern of editing (and please, more than two or three edits) can be reported. If I was handling the report and saw a clear pattern of hit-and-run reverts then I would probably require the editor to post a meaningful explanation on the talk page before reverting. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 12:24, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * , thank you for that very responsive and constructive message. This issue was first raised, I believe by and further articulated by  and derided as a peraonal disparagement by . At any rate, no more needs to be said about it here on the article talk page and you have provided a clear path to resolving this problem. Again, thank you. .<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 12:33, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Please point out the edit where I "derided" anyone, or retract your WP:ASPERSION. — JFG talk 17:07, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

IMHO, the article should be protected for at least' six months. Editor(s) then can make requests for things to be added or deleted. Of course, no action would be taken on such requests until a consensus from them emerged. GoodDay (talk) 17:13, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Workshop on re-working "Consensus required"
I would like to make a proposal to improve the "consensus required" restriction at AE. To discuss/revise that proposal, please see the discussion in my userspace. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 19:31, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 June 2018
The Wikipedia article 'Donald Trump' states : "Mueller is also investigating Trump campaign's possible ties to Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Turkey, Qatar, Israel and China."

I suggest that this sentence instead reads as : Mueller is also investigating the Trump campaign's possible ties to Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Turkey, Qatar, Israel and China." Saehyu (talk) 11:14, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅, thanks. — JFG talk 11:33, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Kim summit in the article at all
The earlier discussion was about whether to put this in the lede, and there was clearly no consensus to do so. I hadn't seen any objection to mentioning it in the article text so I added a paragraph to the North Korea subsection of the Foreign policy section. SPECIFICO reverted it, apparently believing that we should wait a month or two to see if coverage of this is undue WEIGHT. I am truly surprised at that belief - it certainly has far more weight than other things we discuss in that section, such as moving the embassy to Jerusalem or a troop increase in Afghanistan - and I felt it was unfair to our readers to have nothing about the story that has dominated the headlines for a week and gotten heavy coverage for the past two months since it was first proposed. But let's discuss it here. --MelanieN (talk) 23:36, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Just so we are clear what we are talking about: the article previously contained, and now contains again, a single sentence:
 * On June 12. 2018, after several rounds of preliminary staff-level meetings, Trump and Kim met at a hotel in Singapore.

What I added, and SPECIFICO removed, was
 * They talked one-on-one with only interpreters present, then had a working lunch along with staff and advisors. They signed a joint statement agreeing to new peaceful relations, security guarantees for North Korea, reaffirmation of North Korea's promise to work toward denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, recovery of soldiers' remains, and follow-up negotiations between high-level officials. At a followup press conference, Trump announced that the U.S. will stop holding joint military exercises with South Korea, calling them "provocative".

Was that TMI? Let’s discuss it. --MelanieN (talk) 23:42, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with the text as it's written, but I think we should add one sentence that notes: 1) the summit was seen as de-escalatory by experts (i.e. there had been bellicose rhetoric by both sides since Trump took office), 2) the substance of the "agreement" was weak in terms of past agreements and in the context of the current challenges. This can be supported by RS, but I don't have time to dig them up at the moment. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:47, 13 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I am roughly OK with what you wrote, except for the sentence "They talked one-on-one with only interpreters present, then had a working lunch along with staff and advisors.", which is trivial. Also, if we are going to add that Trump announced the end to war games, we need to also add that the announcement blindsided South Korea and the US military. - MrX 🖋 23:50, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I think this info belongs in the Presidency article. If something comes off it then it may be significant enough for this article as well, but we're not there yet.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks, looking forward to more comments. I don't think we should get into analysis and commentary about the meeting. TMI for a biography; leave it for the Summit and Foreign policy articles. But I do think we should give more detail than simply the fact that it happened. Looking at the "weight" of our coverage in that North Korea subsection: we have a paragraph about the increasing tension and threats during 2017. We have a paragraph about the planning for the meeting, including its cancellation and rescheduling. But we can’t say anything about what happened at the meeting? --MelanieN (talk) 23:53, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with Marek, it's easy to justify even a premature version of this summit content in the Presidency article. I also thank MelanieN for pointing out that there's a lot of undue mention of dubious Presidential "achievements" in this bio article. I would continue to trim them to achieve a real bio. Things that are either facts of his life or that RS are very clear will be memorable to his legacy. And to beat my horse again -- how can we omit mention of his America First evisceration of the Post-Ww2 Alliance, widely noted, reported, and analyzed - and an unthinkable development as little as 4 years ago that is one of his few substantive accomplishments.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 00:06, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I say again, nothing substantive has actually happened yet as a result of the meeting. These guys are politicians. Words are their stock in trade, and words is all we have. We must be very careful about even suggesting that anything has actually changed. Just slow down a bit everyone. Please. Oh, and I agree that this is all more suited to the Presidency article, rather than this one. HiLo48 (talk) 01:44, 14 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I like what you did, Melanie, except for the trivia so I agree with what MrX said about that, but not so much about the term "blindsiding" as I saw no real evidence in that regard. The article says the S.K. Defense Ministry issued a "curt statement" but I didn't see anything in the article about it beyond that comment. I think we need to clarify the part about ending the "war games", including the costs, and also the VP's statement which was echoed by Sen Gardner in a tweet: “@VP was very clear: regular readiness training and training exchanges will continue”. That info is included in the same NYTimes article with other material relating to Trump's decision - all were given equal weight.  Former Obama officials expressed concerns - no big surprise there - including McKeon's comment: “On the face of it, seems like a pretty big concession”....but that is mostly speculation until we see what Un does on his end. <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 📞📧 01:45, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * MelanieN's version was just fine. I did not see anything trivial about mentioning that Kim and Trump had a semi-private talk followed by a working luncheon with their high level support staffs.--MONGO 01:50, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Atsme, I have not seen any RS discussion of the "cost savings" of discontinuing security preparedness in the South China Sea except to express utter amazement that Trump would go so far beyond any credible posture and that Pence and others would have to walk back POTUS pronouncements while they were still warm, less than 12 hours afterward. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 02:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * P.S. Atsme: "un" is his middle name. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 02:21, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Not really middle names in Korean... Jong-un is his first name. PackMecEng (talk) 02:28, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. Good-un.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 02:42, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * [[File:Hm and sigh.ogg]] PackMecEng (talk) 02:48, 14 June 2018 (UTC)


 * This "summit" with the dictator of a smallish country which resulted in words that RS mostly describe as "more words" and "feelings" is in while the G-7 summit Trump torpedoed can't be mentioned? No way! Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 03:35, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Add Melanie's version and then rewrite the "North Korea" foreign policy section. It reads like Hawaii is still preparing for imminent nuclear attack while Reliable Sources(tm) are now portraying NK as insignificant and unworthy of attention by the US president when less than a year ago they were showing maps of where Experts(tm) thought NK missiles could reach and hawai were placing their kids in storm drains .  The departure from "six party talks" as well as the thawing relationship between NK and SK is historic and unprecedented since before WW2.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.111.108 (talk) 05:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * ...if it's real. The problem is that all we have so far is words from politicians. I work on the basis of not believing them until they prove me wrong. I am awaiting definite actions. HiLo48 (talk) 06:06, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The summit happened. NK and SK are talking and have met a few times with each crossing over the armistice. Those are simple facts.  We aren't in the WP:CRYSTAL business.  It's not like we are reporting the reunification of Korea, just the reality of what has occurred.  The meetings are unprecedented and historic.  Certainly as worthy of writing about as Clinton's North Korean deals as well as Obama's.  All have tried to denuclearize NK and the attempts are all noteworthy.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.111.108 (talk) 06:22, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I cannot get as excited as you seem to be about mere words. HiLo48 (talk) 06:29, 14 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Include – I agree to Melanie's proposed text, except the last sentence about halting military drills, because this was only volunteered by Trump in his press conference, and the precise outcome is not yet clear (next drills are scheduled for August, so I suppose we'll find out soon). Reporting on what happened at the summit and what was jointly declared, even if "mere words", is highly encyclopedic and DUE. — JFG talk 12:02, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Query On what basis would we exclude the documented proclamation by the Commander in Chief of the US Military that he is suspending military maneuvers? <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 12:25, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Because that's just something he mentioned to the press, and has not been confirmed by the White House or the DoD. Ditto with Trump's statement that Kim would scuttle a missile engine test site: no confirmation from North Korea, so too early to mention. — JFG talk 12:29, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Surely you are not suggesting that the supreme commander's statement as to his own military is equivalent to the same individual's second-hand statement about what he expects his adversary to do? What do you mean by "The White House" confirming the words of a US President? That is not easy to understand. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 12:39, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Have you seen a White House statement or a DoD statement in writing? I haven't. Trump's blather is notoriously unreliable. — JFG talk 12:43, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Any addition to the article that includes the "essence" of the nebulous, meaningless statement signed by Trump and Kim, but excludes the astounding plan to suspend "provocative" war games that shocked the South Koreans and other allies in the region without securing any concessions will get no support from me. It was literally THE most talked/written about aspect of the summit after the actual meeting itself. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:19, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * }Help us understand what you're saying. Are you saying that "The White House" overrules the President of the US? Who is "The White House?" Which of the two is in command of the US Military? Could you clarify your claims? What would be the basis for subordinating the Commander in Chief's declaration?  Your personal opinion ("Trump's blather...") is not helpful. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 16:40, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Looking at this comment from you, On what basis would we excluded the documented proclamation by the Commander in Chief of the US Military that he is suspending military maneuvers?, I am hopelessly confused. You are the one who has been insisting we shouldn't say ANYTHING about what happened at the meeting, and certainly not anything about the final communique, because we need to wait for it to get digested by independent sources. At least I think that's what you have been saying; it's certainly why you reverted the addition of details about the meeting. And yet now you are saying that we SHOULD include a comment that Trump made at a next-day press conference? Could you please clarify your position? --MelanieN (talk) 01:15, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks like a line of text was dropped I will investigate. Thanks.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 01:20, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * OK. JFG is saying, when Trump says this apparently rash and reckless thing we disregard it because the President of USA and Commander in Chief does not speak for "The White House". This makes no sense and it reads as if he's sweeping Trump's statement under the rug -- a statement that horrified RS reporters and expert analysts. So I'm asking JFG to articulate the theory under which he thinks it's OK to ignore POTUS statement when RS say it reveals ignorance or incompetence but otherwise to accept POTUS words as being authoritative on a wide range of other subjects.  I don't believe JFG has responded. We can't really take his suggestion seriously without some convincing rationale. So my question is about why one POTUS statement and not another? <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 01:26, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, could you please clarify your position? Do you think we should include details about the meeting and the communique they issued afterward? Do you think we should include Trump's statement about stopping joint military exercises with South Korea? --MelanieN (talk) 01:32, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * OK. Regardless of any of our conclusions, we can't elevate the Joint Statement, but ignore Trump's off the cuff cancellation of military preparedness which is what JFG appears to propose. My view is we should leave the whole joint statement off. It's just bad theater and it's a flash-in-the-pan, already off the news and analysis cause today they got another bite at Anthony Weiner and Sara H. Sanders/Mexican juveniles is heating up. The nukes thing is over for 3-6 months, IMO, and who has said it amounts to a hill of beans? The shocking impromptu POTUS decision to change US military posture in Asia may be noteworthy of itself, and merits further discussion. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 01:37, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Include all of it. The same arguments were made to exclude mentioning the on again/off again/on again summit because it fit some preconceived notion/confirmation bias about "The Truth." .  Write what both leaders said rather than trying to insert personal assessments of truthiness.  Their statements are notable and verifiable.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.222.203.2 (talk) 02:37, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not about "truth". Wikipedia is not just a collection of verified facts. Facts must also be significant ("noteworthy") and it's not clear that the 4 points in this document are significant in any respect. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 02:50, 15 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Include some - should follow WP:WEIGHT and have material on events in proportion to the amount of coverage -- roughly anyway, though that may mean other changes to this section. Googling, I see "fire and fury" has 56,000 hits and gets a line; so "Korean summit" having 1,840,000 hits looks like it should have 400 lines.  That's really not feasible but perhaps makes the point that it's bigger than other things that are here.  Seems also showing that other bits got an UNDUE amount of space and should look into having them reduced or removed.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:31, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "Trump hair" has 800,000,000 + hits. Let's not favor easy metrics over judgment. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 15:49, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Trump's cancellation of the joint military exercises should now be placed in the article, per discussion above. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 03:11, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Now we can do it, because DoD and South Korea have confirmed they are suspending several drills that were planned over the next few months. Generally, there is new information about the followup to the Singapore summit, so that we can restart a discussion on what to add. Will suggest a draft in a new section. — JFG talk 08:30, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Improving the "White supremacist support" section
On 12 June, added the following text to the "White supremacist support" section:

Shortly thereafter, removed a prior sentence:

for being redundant with Tobby72's wider-scope text. Then today 20 June challenged the new text, saying "sketchy source, out of context, undue". I subsequently restored the longstanding phrase dating from 26 October 2017, pending discussion.

How can we improve this section? My personal impression is that we are giving too much weight to the "bad earpiece" anecdote, and we should provide a higher-level view of Trump's position vs Duke and other white supremacists. I don't have an exact text to propose yet. — JFG talk 18:00, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree with all of this, I think that the amount of citations saying he supports white supremacy is UNDUE considering the other reliable sources stating Trump's view. The best thing to do would probably be to implement a paragraph or so talking about his disavowing of David Duke and the KKK and what not. Jdcomix (talk) 18:05, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It's important to go beyond just "Trump condemned Duke, the KKK, etc." After all, that's an oversimplification that removes the necessary nuance of what actually happened. Trump said there were "very fine people on both sides" before denouncing Charlottesville and has sent repeated dogwhistles to white supremacists. This needs to be included to not err by omission. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:32, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think the section needs improvement (apart from one dodgy reference). It looks good in its current form. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:36, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with JFG about taking out the "bad earpiece" part. That's just their spin and we shouldn't repeat it. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:41, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * We should not exclude Trump's statements - example: USA Today - Trump also said "not all of those people" who attended the demonstration were not racist or neo-Nazi, but only wanted to protest the city's plans to remove the Robert E. Lee statue. See LATimes article. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 21:06, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No. The bit about the statue received very little coverage, so it would violate WP:WEIGHT. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:46, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * See NYTimes article. You are taking WEIGHT out of context, re: "bit about the statue", unlike what you claim, actually did receive substantial coverage; therefore, Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Where does it say to exclude such material? Further, NPOV states: ...representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. <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 📞📧 23:09, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken. The ratio of white supremacy/KKK/Duke coverage to statue coverage is about 3000:1, which means it fails per WP:WEIGHT. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:34, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * In checking the links you provided, the first 5 included a WaPo article which begins with Larry King's question to Trump on CNN, asking if the David Duke thing bothered him, and Trump replied: “I hate seeing what it represents, but I guess it just shows there’s a lot of hostility in this country. There’s a tremendous amount of hostility in the United States.” The 2nd & 3rd are Snopes fact check articles which debunk the fake photos and failed attempts to link Trump to the KKK. The 3rd link is the NBC Meet The Press interview wherein Trump clearly rebukes Duke. The other sources that followed were opinion pieces, advocacy sources, The Daily Beast article which primarily exposed Duke for what he is along with a weak attempt to tie Trump into that mix, not unlike what HRC detractors tried to do by connecting her to Senator Byrd, a former KKK member whom she admired - we don't do guilt by association.  NPOV, V, NEWSORG and LABEL advise us how to treat controversial material, but we must also rely on sound editorial judgment which I liken to our consensus process: Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. There are variables to having lots of RS, such as how much weight is given to the allegation in each source, how many of the sources are just reprints of a wire service report, whether the same company owns several news sources, etc. I'm through discussing this issue. Let consensus make the determination. <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 📞📧 14:46, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Right, you can't present the "disavow" without context; that he faced a huge backlash for refusing to do so in the first place. I mean, why would a president even be expected to disavow the KKK, David Duke and white supremacists? Because he invited speculation by refusing to condemn these individuals and organisations when he had the opportunity. That's part of the story here and should be included.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:13, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

No change needed The current text is balanced and succinct. The earpiece bit was widely reported and is typical of Trump's behavior when his words are challenged. The two bits that were removed were POV spin. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 23:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The "White supremacist support" section obviously violates WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. Per WP:PUBLICFIGURE: In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – diff – removed content --Tobby72 (talk) 10:32, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait a second, the article already says that Trump disavowed Duke. Now you want to add that he disavowed Duke "on multiple occasions". I don't see that the source states that in their own voice. Please explain.- MrX 🖋 14:44, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The article says: Trump personally condemned the alt-right in an interview after the election. –


 * I wanted to re-add: Trump has disavowed white supremacists, alt-right supporters, David Duke and the Ku Klux Klan on multiple occasions. –, ,
 * David Duke is a bad person, who I disavowed on numerous occasions over the years," Trump said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe. I disavowed him. I disavowed the KKK," Trump added. "Do you want me to do it again for the 12th time? I disavowed him in the past, I disavow him now. CNN, March 3, 2016: -- Tobby72 (talk) 22:35, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Please don't. The existing text is perfectly fine, because it gives both "sides" the appropriate weight. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You're not adding new information to this discussion. Which of these sources say "Trump disavowed Duke on multiple occasions", and in which paragraph? - MrX 🖋 23:35, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The sentence says he condemned the alt-right. The BBC article body says he condemned the fringe "alt-right" group that celebrated his election win with Nazi salutes. It doesn't say or suggest that he condemned any other fringe alt-right groups. (As Trump most likely knew, many such groups vocally oppose giving National Socialist salutes, because socialism.) The sentence can accordingly be tagged as a verification fail. --Dervorguilla (talk) 23:03, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Since when is the Washington Times a reliable source? I don’t even see how we can say "personally condemned" in Wiki voice; it’s a Trump quote from a NYT interview on Nov 22, 2016, after an interviewer specifically asked him whether he was going to condemn people who pledged their allegiance to Nazism. Is it for "balance"? Throughout the campaign, after Charlottesville, and on other occasions he was pretty mealy-mouthed ("both sides"), claiming he didn't know anything about Duke or white supremacy or white supremacist groups but if his interviewers would send me a list of the groups, I will do research on them. And, certainly, I would disavow if I thought there was something wrong. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:02, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Tobby72 also added the POV tag which hasn't been discussed so far. I'm not sure if I can go ahead and challenge by reverting, so I'm just stating my opposition here. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 22:19, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The tag should be removed. Tobby72 has ignored my request to show any source that states "Trump disavowed Duke on multiple occasions", so the tag is spurious.- MrX 🖋 00:48, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * YouTube video – Trump disavowed Duke on multiple occasions – August 15, 2017.
 * David Duke is a bad person, who I disavowed on numerous occasions over the years," Trump said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe. I disavowed him. I disavowed the KKK," Trump added. "Do you want me to do it again for the 12th time? I disavowed him in the past, I disavow him now. — Trump denounces David Duke, KKK – CNN, March 3, 2016
 * In response to calls from the Anti-Defamation League, Donald J. Trump on Thursday said he “disavows” comments by David Duke, the former Ku Klux Klan leader, about “Jewish extremists” who opposed his candidacy. — Donald Trump ‘Disavows’ David Duke’s Remarks on ‘Jewish Extremists’ – New York Times, May 5, 2016 -- Tobby72 (talk) 07:26, 24 June 2018 (UTC)


 * A WP:COPYVIO youtube video by a conspiracy theorist is not a reliable source. Trump's claims that he disavowed Duke are not usable for obvious reasons. The third source doesn't support the claim that "Trump disavowed Duke on multiple occasions". See WP:OR. - MrX 🖋 13:40, 24 June 2018 (UTC)


 * (Seriously, a mash-up of unidentified and unidentifiable video snippets by Mark Dice?) Trump is quoted by CNN as saying on Morning Joe that he had disavowed Duke on numerous occasions; it’s not RS reporting on any of the disavowals. NYT: Trump did not disavow Duke or the KKK or white supremacists, he disavowed specific comments made by Duke on a specific topic and in a specific radio broadcast. Big difference!  Besides, why is Trump using "disavow" in the first place? It’s not as if Duke were a member of the same party or of his organization, or is he?  Denounce, rebuke, condemn, reject … as racist, anti-semitic … - the English language has a "yuge" vocabulary, and Trump said that he has the best words, but unfortunately he doesn’t seem to be using them or know how to use them. He could have simply said that he does not endorse hate groups and didn't ask for or want their support. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:40, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

The first thing that has to change in the section is the header/title. Immediately. As it stands, it looks like Trump supports White Supremacist groups. Which he doesn't, so the header is incredibly dishonest, misleading, and - to a degree - POV. Should read: Support from White Supremacy groups. <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;">✉ ✓ 14:57, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Per White supremacy, "white supremacy" is not capitalized. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  15:06, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Trump says (from time to time) he doesn't, but in fact RS tell us he does so the text, as it stands, is OK. More detailed text can, of course, be added. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 15:11, 24 June 2018 (UTC)


 * No, the heading does not need to change. Read some sources or even do Google search. There is evidence aplenty that Trump does support white supremacists and vice versa.- MrX 🖋 15:12, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Republican support, socialist support, lunatic fringe support: Is that support for or by Republicans, socialists, the lunatic fringe? The construction may be a little ambiguous, but my impression was "support by." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:29, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * , please...there is absolutely no evidence that Trump "supports" white supremacists anymore than Obama supported Islamic terrorism. Surely you have the needed editorial discretion to make a sound judgment call between what biased clickbait media portrays and what Trump's actions and actual FACTS tell us. Show me one instance in the Trump presidency that supports white supremacy other than the spin by biased media, and I will expeditiously change my position about the topic. Until then - I agree with - it needs to be revisited. If local consensus doesn't clear this up, then we should probably call an RfC to get it resolved once and for all. What I find most disconcerting is the urgency in which the opposition expects an answer, and when their demands are not met within their demanded time frame, they consider it reason enough to question a U.S. President's credibility. I'm ok with the questioning but I'm not ok with the media creating their own facts after the questions have been answered. Time published President Donald Trump sharply condemned racist, white supremacist, and neo-Nazi sympathizers on Monday afternoon, after nearly 48 hours of bipartisan criticism over his response to the weekend’s violent clashes in Charlottesville, Va. but of course, they had to add their own spin. A CNN headline: Trump signs resolution condemning white supremacy and Congress passed the resolution...and there are multiple sources that debunk your allegations of white supremacist views. How much blood do you need from that turnip?  <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 📞📧 21:09, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not taking the bait. I will let other editors decide if what I wrote conforms to reality.- MrX 🖋 21:22, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll take the bait. Obama never described al Qaeda or ISIS as having "very fine people". – Muboshgu (talk) 21:38, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh my - I wasn't baiting anyone, - I am not a master baiter......I am a Debater who expresses positions that support my arguments. I'm not trying to "trap" anyone into anything per WP:BAIT.  I am truly interested in what arguments support the opposition. I am also a believer in "actions speak louder than words"...and am of the mind that few will disagree. As for the Obama argument...actions do speak louder than words...Handel said the Obama administration admitted that nearly $2 billion flown to Iran is being used to fund terrorism and various supporting activities. She is more specific than the record supports. One way or another, the United States transferred $1.7 billion owed to Iran. As for what the administration admitted, Kerry said it was likely that some portion of any money Iran received would go to its top security organization and some of that money would end up advancing terrorism. So...what like actions can we attribute to Trump as evidence that he knowingly supports white supremacy?  <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 📞📧 22:01, 24 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Trump is certainly not out there at a Klan rally the way he attends NRA or right-to-life events, we're not suggesting Trump is actively and publicly rooting for these people. The issue with Trump and white supremacism is his tacit approval via dog whistles, failure to denounce in a timely fashion, etc. He's quite willing to receive their support, and does the bare minimum of "denouncing" them to avoid the really bad press. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:11, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That is POV judgment based on the opposition's timeline and demands for expediency. C'mon, Muboshgu - it is ridiculous to expect any world leader to respond immediately to anything from the media. For us to form opinions based on speculation and what is considered "timely" is ludicrous at best. We suffer "timely" here on WP - just went through that regarding a TP incident. A WP BLP about a standing U.S. president deserves far better than speculation and POV judgments. Leave the politics out of the article. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 22:21, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Have you read your source past the headline? The article states very clearly that it didn't happen the way you claim it did, i.e., Congress passing a resolution after Trump had signed it: Congress passed the resolution earlier this week, pushing Trump to put his signature on something expressly singling out white supremacy for condemnation. Here's a quote from another CNN article from a day earlier: Congress passed the bipartisan joint resolution condemning the Charlottesville violence -- as well as "white nationalists, white supremacists, the Ku Klux Klan, neo-Nazis, and other hate groups"-- earlier this week, pushing Trump to sign the resolution explicitly condemning the racist gathering. The House passed the joint resolution by unanimous consent Tuesday night, a day after the Senate easily approved it.condemning the Charlottesville violence -- as well as "white nationalists, white supremacists, the Ku Klux Klan, neo-Nazis, and other hate groups" (CNN-9-13-17). The first paragraph of your CNN source also says that Trump signed Hours after he returned to rhetoric equating violence from white supremacists with those protesting them. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 04:36, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I vaguely remembered this but had to search for it: For once, Trump signed his name without fanfare, no pictures, no press present, no tweets then or later The White House sent out a statement Thursday night announcing that Trump had signed it behind closed doors. (USNews). And after the signing (the same day), he went right back to you have some pretty bad dudes on the other side also. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 05:20, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Our perspectives on the CNN source are clearly different. I tend not to focus on single words like "pushing" to establish context, and I steer clear of SOAPBOX, as difficult as it may be when humanity is involved, but NPOV requires strict adherence in these instances - dispassionate tone being paramount - using in-text attribution for contentious statements. We don't state opinions as facts and vice versa. Trump has said all along that he was ready and willing to sign a bill - responses like "looks forward to" and that he will "absolutely sign" following his condemnation and actual signing of the bill speak volumes to me - facts accompanied by unequivocal evidence. Perhaps the media considered "pushing" to be the following: "While it's not uncommon for resolutions to go through the House and the Senate, it's rare that they head to the President for signature. But framing it as a joint resolution ensures it will land on the President's desk.  As for his signing the bill behind closed doors...so what?  It's speculation and falls short of having any longterm encyclopedic value and what I consider UNDUE. The NYTimes published a "collection of partisan writing" in response to what took place. I most appreciated 5:38's take on the event, noting the following comment by the article's author, Perry Bacon Jr.: "To what extent is Trump driving the country towards more white-identity politics? I’m not sure, since it’s hard to determine the cause and effect here: Did Obama’s election, the events of 2014, such as Ferguson and its aftermath, and the nation’s increasing diversity create an atmosphere for “white lives matter”-style activism that Trump was able to tap into? Or did his campaign create the movement in some ways? Or did Trump simply expand or highlight what was already there? I don’t know." <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 📞📧 18:29, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Forbes 400 tapes, again.
JFG has proposed modifying the version of the Forbes sentence that we agreed on in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_82#Should_we_mention_the_Forbes_400_tapes_in_the_'wealth'_section_of_the_article? this] RFC; technically, looking over the history, it looks like he tried to implement it with a modified version, which I only corrected last night. For now I've switched back to the exact version that reached consensus in the RFC rather than trying for a compromise - since it seems there's still a dispute, please do not modify it, at all, until we have clear consensus here. The differences between the two versions are here, with his preferred version on the left. My objections: 1. The "share of the family assets" aspect is not particularly prominent in the sources (in fact, most do not mention it at all), so I feel it's a digression that distracts from the primary focus of essentially all coverage, which is that Trump lied about his wealth in order to get into the Forbes 400 list; and 2. the proposed change does not explicitly state that the purpose of the deception was to get onto the Forbes 400 list, which is the primary focus of all the coverage. The latter of these things was also the main focus of the RFC (it's in the title!), so taking it out unambiguously violates the RFC's conclusion. --Aquillion (talk) 20:11, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The RfC did not mandate a specific wording, so I don't think I "proposed modifying" anything. In fact, seeing no action since RfC was closed, I read all sources and wrote a sentence that I felt reflected the closer's conclusion pretty well, viz:
 * then changed it to:
 * with edit comment "Rewording slightly to more closely match the version of the Greenberg sentence that was settled on in the RFC, with some minor additions to make it clear that this refers to the 1982 list." I reverted this with edit comment: "I disagree. Greenberg actually says that Trump deceived him and his colleagues for several years, not just in 1982. Also, the weaseling about his share of the family business is very significant."
 * Context is already clear that we are in 1982, as the previous sentence says:
 * And the Greenberg piece specifically explains that Trump apparently inflated his wealth repeatedly during the 1980s, until Forbes finally dropped him in 1989. Also, the 50/50 share with Trump Sr. looked extremely dubious, and that is definitely worth mentioning. Taking into account Aquillion's remarks, I would suggest this change:
 * What do you think? — JFG talk 21:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * And the Greenberg piece specifically explains that Trump apparently inflated his wealth repeatedly during the 1980s, until Forbes finally dropped him in 1989. Also, the 50/50 share with Trump Sr. looked extremely dubious, and that is definitely worth mentioning. Taking into account Aquillion's remarks, I would suggest this change:
 * What do you think? — JFG talk 21:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * What do you think? — JFG talk 21:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * What do you think? — JFG talk 21:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC)


 * *Oppose - sorry, JFG - but I think it's trivia with -0- lasting encyclopedic value, except maybe to a Forbes ex-staffer who is suddenly looking for attention. That claim didn't get any mileage when it happened, yet all of a sudden it means something? Time wise, we're in the first 500+ days of his presidency, and as more stuff develops, we'll be looking to TTT (trim the trivia), so we might as well start now. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 21:47, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * We are not re-running the RfC, so you can't "oppose". Please. A sentence must be added, let's focus on discussing the exact wording. — JFG talk 21:51, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Door #4 - apologies, I wasn't here for the close and totally overlooked it above. "Former Forbes reporter Jonathan Greenberg stated....". <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 📞📧 00:22, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * OpposeThis is rather outrageous. OP wrote text that reflected the conclusion of the uninvolved closer of the poll and JFG -- having !voted against inclusion because +/-"Trump hahaha," then wants to go back to the text that deviates from the closing instruction only shortly after the close. No justification for any deviation from the Aquillion text.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 22:03, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You are misrepresenting what went on. Please review the edit history and stop the personal attacks. — JFG talk 22:30, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You wrote text that ignored the instructions of the closer. OP fixed it and now you want to deviate again. Clue us in - what did I get wrong? Thanks. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 22:36, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Please explain to everybody how I "ignored the instructions of the closer". Closer wrote: clearly a very strong consensus that something about the Forbes tapes be included: I did the work to include it when nobody seemed to care 3 days after the RfC was closed. Closer wrote: However […] the positioning and phrasing of the sentence may lead readers to think that it's alleged Trumps current position on the Forbes list is the result of fabrication […] thought should be given to phrasing when including them in the article. Consequently I paid attention to detail and wrote a carefully-worded sentence that correctly represents the substance of Greenberg's declarations. And it was not because "Trump hahaha"; in fact my phrasing is harder on Trump than Aquillion's version, by adding that he reportedly lied about the 50/50 (or 90/10, or 5/95, who knows?) share of the family fortune, which is a fucking big deal and was duly noted by several participants in the RfC. So, quit lecturing me in every thread based on what you guess I think, quit misrepresenting what I and others are actually writing, and go put in some constructive work into the article itself. Your constant badgering of this talk page and lack of AGF is extremely frustrating to several editors. Thanks. — JFG talk 22:58, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It is very clear from the close: ...thought should be given to phrasing when including them in the article (perhaps citing the year the events were alleged to have occured?) - This was in the article before the RfC, I believe, but at any rate you did not do this in the text you wrote after the close. This was what corrected and what necessitated this thread. Nobody here should judge content on whether it's "harder on Trump..." so I don't think that's germane and I won't respond to that. As to your comment in the RfC, it is on the record. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 00:28, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The first sentence of the RFC is Since it seems like everyone has presented their arguments and there are requests for an RFC... this discussion led to debates over whether we should include this edit, which covers tapes by reporter Jonathan Greenberg that he says shows Trump lying in order to get on the Forbes 400 list, with a link to a specific edit that was the topic of discussion. I appreciate that (even as someone who opposed during the RFC) you probably felt that you were trying for a reasonable interpretation of what the RFC required and that you felt you'd satisfactorily met that standard (maybe even feeling you'd gone beyond it by being more "harsh" to Trump, as you said above); I don't fault you for that.  But now that an objection has been raised we must go back to a strict reading of the RFC's outcome, at least for now. Anyway, procedure-yammering aside, since we're discussing it now and I should probably move on to that so we can actually hammer the rest of that consensus out...  as I said above, I feel the "share of family assets" bit is a nonstarter - I don't feel one aspect of the exact mechanism of his deception (arguing over the share of wealth) is worth including in a one-sentence summary, since only some of the secondary sources focus on it.  If we were writing a larger block of text, sure, we'd mention it, but I don't think the sources support the idea that it belongs in a one-sentence summary. --Aquillion (talk) 01:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I felt it was important to mention the "share of family's fortune" aspect of Trump's deception, because the preceding sentence in our prose states: He appeared on the initial Forbes 400 list of richest Americans in 1982 with an estimated $200 million fortune equally shared with his father. Consequently I would still advocate for some text that would acknowledge this was likely a misrepresentation by Trump. Open to discussion on the exact wording, of course. Taking into account your other remark that we should also state Trump's goal to be on the list, my suggestion is: Former Forbes reporter Jonathan Greenberg stated in 2018 that Trump had deceived him about his actual net worth and his share of the family assets in order to appear on the list. It's still brief, and it's more precise. Can you get behind that? — JFG talk 22:20, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Still not convinced. Honestly I'd be more likely to remove or replace the preceding sentence (it's sourced to a slideshow, of all things?  Listacles are not particularly good sources, since they provide no context or depth.) --Aquillion (talk) 05:15, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Good point about the slideshow; I replaced it with a proper article from Forbes which recaps the evolution of Trump's estimated fortune from 1982 to 2015. Crucially it doesn't say that the $200 million of 1982 were shared "equally" with his father, just shared, so I edited accordingly. — JFG talk 14:00, 9 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Still think exclude - trivia lightly covered piece, lacks WEIGHT and simply not a major action by Trump or significant effect to his life that would make it suitable for BLP menion.  For the whole section I'd prefer simplify, shorten, and summarize the too many figures makes it TLDR and an unimportant interview 40 years ago is just a level of excess detail.   Describe it in 10 words or less,leave more detail inside the cite that will pop-up if someone wants it and move along.  Cheers   Markbassett (talk) 05:02, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * RfC has decided to include this, doesn't matter that you'd still like it out. You say "describe it in 10 words or less"; why not but do you have a suggestion? Current proposal on the table is 32 words, I'd struggle to shorten it without trimming its meaning. — JFG talk 05:45, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm not following the history too well right now, but I support the version in the fourth green box (whatever proposal that is), with one caveat: since we have said that his statement was in 2018, I feel it necessary to clarify that we are talking about events that happened in the 1980s. We can say 1980s generally instead of 1982 specifically if that's the reason people are objecting to it. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 01:45, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If I can still comment on this, and it looks like I can, I agree with Compassionate727: the fourth option looks best with me, with the 1980s note thrown in. &mdash; Javert2113 (Let's chat! | Contributions) 01:55, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Version 4 I support version 4. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:38, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Support Aquillion's version with one change: In 2018, former Forbes reporter Jonathan Greenberg said that Trump had deceived him about his actual wealth in order to be included on the 1982 listing. We need the year for clarification in the second sentence so that another reader/editor who's not familiar with the backstory or the RfC won't wonder why 2018 is chronologically situated between 1982 and 1989. I would even suggest removing "actual" - "his wealth" suffices. We don't need to repeat the detail about him sharing wealth/assets with his father. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:16, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Finding consensus
Thanks for the new comments. Current status: Who else would like to comment? — JFG talk 19:02, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support 4th version, possibly adding "in the 1980s": JFG, Atsme, Compassionate727, Javert2113, Emir of Wikipedia, Winkelvi, Jdcomix, Mandruss
 * Support prior text: Aquillion, SPECIFICO, Space4Time3Continuum2x (with slight change), Scjessey
 * Support full removal: Markbassett (but that would go against the RfC outcome)
 * Number 4 is a non-starter, as it violates the RfC requirement that 1982 be mentioned for context. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 02:13, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 1982 is already in the previous sentence for context, it would be bad prose to repeat it. And we have the suggestion to add "in the 1980s" to better reflect the source, as Greenberg alleged that Trump inflated his wealth repeatedly throughout the decade. — JFG talk 05:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Basically, since you're the editor who precipitated this situation, it would be best if you step back and don't act as emcee or moderator. This will be resolved in due time by discussion, not vote counting and prompts. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 02:49, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Could you possibly assess consensus here, or add your own thoughts? — JFG talk 08:27, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oops - you caught me. I've been ignoring this discussion - also the previous one - so I guess that makes me uninvolved. I'll take a look later today and see if I can make anything out if it. --MelanieN (talk) 16:46, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Could somebody please clarify what you mean by “version 4,” “Aquillion’s version”, etc. - since the various versions are not clearly identified in the discussion? --MelanieN (talk) 17:48, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Aquillion's is: In 2018, Jonathan Greenberg, an ex-Forbes reporter, said that Trump had deceived him about his actual wealth in order to be included on the 1982 listing. Version 4 is: Former Forbes reporter Jonathan Greenberg stated in 2018 that Trump had deceived him about his actual net worth and his share of the family assets in order to appear on the list. — JFG talk 18:36, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. --MelanieN (talk) 19:13, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I find that the discussion is not ready to close, because three additional comments were made in the last 24 hours. Apparently not all parties have been heard from; maybe the recent talk here attracted renewed attention. I will attempt to close it in a day or two, or whenever it appears that discussion is over. --MelanieN (talk) 19:44, 25 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Support version 4. <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;">✉ ✓ 16:56, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support prior text, per Aquillion. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:48, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support 4th version per above. Jdcomix (talk) 20:10, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support version 4 - because it has the lead and I oppose spending a lot of time deciding between multiple wordings when they are (1) factually equivalent and (2) neither problematic from a language standpoint (grammar, clarity, flow, etc.). I wouldn't be surprised to see either sentence in The New York Times, and that's a high enough bar for me. IOW it's an arbitrary choice. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:14, 25 June 2018 (UTC)


 * This looks ready to close now. This was a discussion about how to implement a recent RfC, with two slightly different sentences proposed. Version 4 seems to have the edge, but multiple people expressed the idea that the sentence should specify “1982 listing” or “in the1980s”. That was also part of the guidance from the closer of the original RfC. The sentence now in the article is “An ex-Forbes reporter said in 2018 that Trump had inflated his actual wealth in order to be included on the list.[84][85]”.  There appears to be a rough consensus to change it to something along these lines: “Former Forbes reporter Jonathan Greenberg stated in 2018 that during the 1980s Trump had deceived him about his actual net worth and his share of the family assets in order to appear on the list.[84][85]” --MelanieN (talk) 04:35, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Books -- removal of sourced content
This edit removes the substance of the cited source's description of the books to which it refers. The cited source states: "much of the advice usually falls between obvious and useless. Stay focused, he says. Hire a great assistant. Think big. Where he gets specific, it’s stuff like: “The best way to ask for a raise is to wait for the right time.” This edit deviates from the cited source and should be undone. If you are concerned that this respected critic is presenting an "opinion" -- which hardly seems germane, given that any reader would draw the same conclusion -- then cite him, but don't misrepresent the source.

Anybody have a good reason not to undo this edit? <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 19:47, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * My edit restores neutrality, and challenges your adding the "useless" qualifier on 22 June. — JFG talk 19:59, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. Criticisms don't belong in a sectiom that doesn't even identify the books being discussed. Undue. FloridaArmy (talk) 20:10, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes - with a suggestion - cite a different source, and present all relevant views per NPOV. To include a single opinion that states, "useless advice about finance" is POV. Provide the quote via in-text attribution, include other relevant views, and let the reader make their own determination. <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 📞📧 21:07, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Lead sentence - "in office since January 20, 2017"
I know this has been discussed recently, but I want to delete "in office since January 20, 2017". It is too specific for the first sentence of the article. Current first sentence: jamacfarlane (talk) 05:26, 1 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Not too specific, since the elected American president is always sworn in on 20th January. TFD (talk) 05:52, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Per the discussion links at #17, this instance of day precision originated mostly in April 2017, when the date was only 3 months old. One could make a case for reducing the precision now; OTOH I'm not convinced it's necessary now, either, and I usually want a compelling reason to amend a longstanding consensus. But date precision and specificity are different things, and the OP appears to be saying that any "in office since" date is too specific for the first sentence of the article, even if the precision is reduced. They can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I would disagree. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  02:17, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I fail to see the connection between it always being on the 20th and not being too specific (if anything wouldn't, that support the argument that it is too specific because a reader can infer the date?) Personally I feel the exact day is trivial. January 2017, early 2017, or just 2017 would be better in my opinion (I think January 2017 is my favorite). But wasn't involved in the previous discussions, so I don't know they reached the consensus that they did. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 01:57, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Generally speaking, the older a date is the less precision is appropriate. (I say generally speaking because there are cases where a centuries-old date warrants day precision; see Magna Carta.) If I see a photo caption resembling "[name] in August 2003", I remove the month unless it has some relevance; but I would leave "[name] in August 2017" and maybe even "[name] in August 2016".
 * User:Mandruss is correct, I meant it's unneccessary to say when he has been president since. He is the current president and that should be all that matters. I would propose: jamacfarlane (talk) 10:03, 2 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Strong support for this change. Since this is the first sentence of the article, I've given this a lot of thought. It took an awful lot of discussion to get a consensus for what we have now, but I think this proposal warrants revisiting the issue. The lede is meant to summarize the body of the article, and I would concur that the date Trump took office is a superfluous detail. Only when an assumption of office is on an unusual date is it really worth mentioning in the lede. Not only is it fully covered in the body of the article, but it's also in the infobox immediately adjacent. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:19, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Support lower precision – Exact date is no longer very relevant, so I would support changing "since 20 January 2017" to "since January 2017". "Since 2017" would still be too vague, and no date is just less informative: if we adopt the OP's proposal, we would need to add the inauguration date elsewhere in the lede section, and that would make it unwieldy. — JFG talk 13:47, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Why would we need to add the date elsewhere in the lede? Nobody cares what date it was, and it is already in the body of the article and the adjacent infobox. It's simply unnecessary repetition of non-useful, superfluous information. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:43, 2 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Jamacfarlane wording per Scjessey-- S Philbrick (Talk)  14:22, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Support lower precision – For same reasons listed above from, thus from "since 20 January 2017" to "since January 2017". For as long as he is president, the qualification as to when he started that job is useful to the readers. On the other hand, the month is sufficient, as the day is too specific for the lede. --1l2l3k (talk) 17:03, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per Scjessey. This date is near the top of the infobox, so including it anywhere in the lead is somewhat redundant. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  17:48, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per Scjessey. <b style="color:#060">L293D</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b> • <b style="color:#000">✎</b>) 18:17, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Non-essential detail for the first sentence. - MrX 🖋 21:27, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per . —Compassionate727 (T·C) 23:20, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment there's obviously consensus to remove the specific date of "20" from the lead; I've done so. There appear to be two votes for the "JFG" proposal of leaving in office since January 2017 in the lead, and at least six for the Jamacfarlane/Scjessey version of removing it entirely.  If the consensus doesn't change I'll remove in office since January 2017 entirely in 24 hours (unless someone else does so first). power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 00:23, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * reverted my change. Do you have any comments to add here? power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 18:23, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * No I didn't see this discussion and just decided to be a bit more precise. Remind me never to edit this article again.  Nixinova   T   C  21:02, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no dispute too small to be discussed here ... this is Wikipedia! power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 21:10, 3 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Support --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:56, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Closing: Thanks for everyone's comments. I have made the change proposed by myself, Scjessey and power~enwiki. jamacfarlane (talk) 04:27, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Iran
You made about 20 changes to the article in a short time period. I corrected the one about 'The Apprentice' and may have reached my 1RR limit for 24 hours, so I’m not touching the others one for now. But let me just ask you about one of them. You struck The administration boasted that from Trump personally lobbied dozens of European officials against doing business with Iran during the May 2017 Brussels summit. OK, arguably toning down fluff, as you put it; but why put "dozens" in quotation marks? According to the source, Trump encouraged dozens of powerful foreign leaders. It doesn’t say that he only lobbied the Europeans at the G20 summit but it does say that he urged dozens of foreign leaders. You didn’t correct the error but you added "irony"? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:48, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Many of those edits had inaccurate edit summaries -- the same issue that's arisen repeatedly in the past -- that belied changes in tone and meaning under the guise of little tweakies. It's extraordinarily burdensome to undo this kind of damage, because some of them require manual reverts due to more than one edit that affected wording or placement. I undid one of them, but the rest should be self-undone and the proposed edits presented on talk to avoid the accumulation of dozens of little unresolved problems with the article and its sourcing. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 14:43, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You know where to complain about "inaccurate edit summaries" and whatnot. This talk page is for constructive criticism about specific issues. — JFG talk 21:49, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I did not mean to convey irony by adding quotes, just showing that the "dozens" wording mirrors the source. I understand how it can be interpreted as doubt, though, so I would agree to remove the quotation marks. Also, as the source says "dozens of foreign leaders", perhaps we should use that instead of "dozens of European officals". An official is not a leader. Re:1RR, you are allowed to undo several edits, as long as you proceed in one session, uninterrupted by intervening changes by others. The goal is to avoid edit-warring, not to curtail editing towards article improvement. — JFG talk 21:49, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Salary
Trump takes home a One-dollar salary per annum. This should be included in the infobox. DrJenkins365 (talk) 22:06, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No. --Malerooster (talk) 22:15, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not worth noting. Also, he donates his salary to charity, which is different from not accepting a salary in the first place.  I think the listing on that page may be in error. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 00:18, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Not worth noting. Other independently wealthy presidents have also donated their salaries to charity: Snopes. Also, there are very expensive, fully taxpayer-funded perks that Trump is accepting: Besides pay, the president gets free transportation in the presidential limousine, Marine One and Air Force One and, of course, free housing in the White House. Another perk: After leaving office, the ex-presidents remain on the government payroll, bringing in an annual pension of about $200,000, as well as health care coverage and paid official travel. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:16, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Free food!<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 07:24, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It's mostly cheeseburgers and affordable :) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:50, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Trump personally makes hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars per year by simply visiting his personal golf clubs and playing more golf than any president in US history, so it would be ridiculous to claim he only takes $1 in salary without this relevant context. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:10, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

He does NOT take a $1 a year salary. That is no longer allowed for government employees; he has to take the full salary that a president is supposed to get (currently $400,000). He then donates it, or some portion of it, however he calculates it, to a government agency on a quarterly basis. --MelanieN (talk) 23:54, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

See also the recent discussion at Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 85. I had added a sentence in the "Wealth" section but several editors thought it was undue, because some prior presidents also forfeited their salary. — JFG talk 00:11, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Donald Trump is making America great again hat sales
Article needs more information on the "MAGA" hat sales. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.115.10.30 (talk) 08:55, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't. Unless hat sales are abundantly covered in WP:reliable sources, and I don't see this happening at this time. — JFG talk 08:58, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 July 2018
Jamaica Estates, Queens Ogn dulk (talk) 05:49, 7 July 2018 (UTC)


 * ❌ - Please get consensus for any change prior to submitting an edit request, per Edit requests. First, see this page's archives for past related discussion. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  06:00, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Travel ban
I'm seeking consensus to change this sentence in the lead: During his presidency, Trump ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, citing security concerns; a revised version of the ban was implemented after legal challenges.

to: During his presidency, Trump ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, citing security concerns; a revised version of the ban was implemented after legal challenges. The ban was upheld by the Supreme Court in a 5-4 ruling.

In light of the Supreme Court ruling. I'm not married to this wording, but we should update the lead accordingly.- MrX 🖋 16:15, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If we're going to update the wording in the lead, it should be made shorter, not longer. I have no suggestion on a text yet. — JFG talk 16:24, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Disagree with JFG. A SCOTUS ruling to uphold a presidential order so hotly discussed, contested, and litigated for 18 months deserves more than a quick mention in the lead. <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;">✉ ✓ 16:28, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, shorter would be better, How about "During his presidency, Trump ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, which was upheld by the Supreme Court after legal challenges."? - MrX 🖋 16:37, 26 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Support expansion, but suggest additional expansion for clarity: The revised ban was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in a 5-4 ruling along ideological lines. It's important to say it was the revised ban (V3.0) that was upheld, not the earlier bans enacted by the Trump administration. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:36, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It should be possible to indicate the nature of the revision(s) in a single sentence - otherwise it is not clear that the initial ban violated fundamental Constitutional principals. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 16:40, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I meant that sentence to be an alternative to MrX's wording, not an addition. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:42, 26 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Alternative - perhaps this would be better: During his presidency, Trump ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, citing security concerns; a revised version of the ban was implemented after legal challenges and later upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in a 5-4 ruling along ideological lines. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:44, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree with inserting opinion about "ideological lines" in the lead. — JFG talk 16:53, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not an opinion. It's in the vast majority of reliable sources already. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:54, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Regardless of it is an opinion or not is excessive detail for the lead of this article. A shorter version would be preferred and getting rid of "ideological lines" seems like a good place to start. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:20, 26 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Building on 's suggestion, how about this:
 * Still short, accurate and chronological, with all relevant links preserved for more detail. I have deliberately omitted the "During his presidency" part, which will depend on where this phrase is placed; it is not covered by current consensus. The "citing security concerns" bit could still be added if editors feel it's important enough (that would keep us closest to prior consensus). — JFG talk 16:52, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No. 5-4 along ideological lines is important. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:53, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * This fact is certainly worth mentioning in the relevant articles, and perhaps in the body here. Too much detail for the lead. — JFG talk 16:54, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. Hardly any words for a key detail. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:56, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Many many Supreme Court decisions are split along "ideological lines", there is nothing exceptional enough to mention here (the lede section of the presidential BLP, not an article about the contested executive order or the SC decision itself). — JFG talk 17:34, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that the vote count is too much detail for the lead. It belongs in the body of the article. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:47, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that the vote count is too much detail for the lead. It belongs in the body of the article. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:47, 26 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Any of the proposals so far are fine with me. I prefer brevity.- MrX 🖋 16:57, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

(I am indifferent to the "along ideological lines" -- that can be covered in the separate article about the ban or in the body of this article. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 17:25, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Most of the reliable sources covering today's ruling make a point of saying the ruling was along ideological lines, and that had Obama not been obstructed by McConnell it likely would've gone the other way. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:53, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, and had Trump not been elected, we all would be discussing something else. Hanging on to regrets over Merrick Garland today does not help us decide what is relevant enough to this lede section. — JFG talk 17:57, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Did you not read what I said earlier? It's reliable sources making the point about the ideological lines, not me. Virtually EVERY article discussing the ruling talks about it, and the vast majority refer back to the Garland decision. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:03, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Scjessey, you can count on getting personal disparagement and deflection when there's no substantive objection to your position. My "indifferent" is because I think we can link to lots of detail in other articles for the legal issues, the opinions, and the politicization of this court. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 18:59, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * And I suppose you did read what I wrote, viz. This fact is certainly worth mentioning in the relevant articles, and perhaps in the body here. Too much detail for the lead. I feel we must just agree to disagree on the appropriate weight of this point of detail. — JFG talk 19:15, 26 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Scjessey's alternative version. It's important to know that it was the ban revised after legal challenges and also that the judges decided along ideological lines. If anyone thinks it's too long for the lead, then lets remove "calling the investigation a politically motivated "witch hunt." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:34, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support SPECIFICO's version although I'm not sure what the "along ideological lines" part means. <b style="color:#060">L293D</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b> • <b style="color:#000">✎</b>) 18:07, 26 June 2018 (UTC) striking to support another option below. <b style="color:#060">L293D</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b> • <b style="color:#000">✎</b>) 22:39, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It means that all of the conservative judges voted one way and all the liberal judges voted another. A related phrase, "along party lines", meaning the division was between Republicans and Democrats, is often used interchangably. They don't mean the same thing, though when applied in the US they usually are. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 23:06, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * While I'm at it, I should mention that basically every Supreme Court case splits along party lines, ±1 judge. Until his death, Antonin Scalia was the wild card on the SC: you could predict with pretty much complete accuracy how every judge would vote except for him, and it often came down to his vote. Anyway, the party split here isn't particularly remarkable and shouldn't be mentioned in the lead; everyone familiar with the Supreme Court (and the judicial system at large) knows it is an extension rather than mediator of partisan politics. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 03:56, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I feel compelled to mention that it is simply not true that "basically every Supreme Court case splits along party lines" -- less than 25% of decisions are decided 5-3 or 5-4, and significantly more cases are decided unanimously. Neutralitytalk 04:07, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Well the Trump-haters are most certainly dominating the content of this article. It is so full of opinion already that it will take decades to clean up. This is exactly the type of brain-washing propaganda that brings more and more free thinking people to support Trump. News flash - since you apparently didn't grasp this fact after the election...Most Americans prefer to draw their own opinions, forcing your views down their throats only turns them away.ISAnerd (talk) 18:25, 26 June 2018 (UTC)


 * (conditional) Oppose - clarity is needed because key points have been omitted regarding the ban & decision, which makes the material come across a bit POVish and leaves readers wondering why these things happened. I've included suggestions (green text) for the language that should be added for clarity and compliance with NPOV - BALANCE:
 * 1) Trump issued a travel ban, titled "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States"
 * 2) The ban affected several Muslim-majority countries  that support terrorist activities, or where such activities are known to exist. <-- it's about terrorism, not Muslims;
 * 3) Implementation of the ban had been delayed by legal challenges  - a series of lower court decisions had ruled the ban unconstitutional.
 * 4) In June 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the ban  as a "legitimate exercise of executive branch authority" in a 5-4 ruling, reversing the lower court decisions.  A good RS to cite is USA Today. <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 📞📧 18:43, 26 June 2018 (UTC) Adding that I'm ok with these suggestions being in the body text in lieu of the lede. 18:45, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support original version, oppose SPECIFICO's version - The 1st version is fine because it lets the reader draw their own conclusion, but the second one (with the "along ideological lines") has a pretty negative undertone to the decision, so I don't think it's appropriate. I'd support it if that line was excluded entirely. Jdcomix (talk) 21:11, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I think we should eliminate "Muslim-majority countries". In the version SCOTUS upheld, two countries are not Muslim-majority. (That's how he got around the religious discrimination angle.) --MelanieN (talk) 22:46, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not - The ban is the result of Trump's calculated plan to ban Muslims from our shores. The fact that Trump threw in a couple of other countries after the fact does not change that. - MrX 🖋 22:55, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Somehow we need to convey that this is the "Muslim Ban" of the 2016 campaign but with 2 countries thrown in to improve the odds after several judicial stays. The "partisan 5-4" bit need not go in the lead or even in this article, but we need to cover the "Muslim Ban" part and cover how the Administration successfully framed the constitutional issue by throwing in NK and VZ. I mean, how many NK immigrants have we had in the past 50 years?  3 maybe? <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 22:59, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * From what I've read in places like TIME, "Muslim majority" is still being used as a short adjective to describe the ban, with the information that cited elaborated on if they actually discuss the ban in detail. The phrase that I seem to read frequently is "the ban on travel from several Muslim-majority countries." Given this is how it is still being described, I'd say its use appropriate, even if it isn't as specific as we would like. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 23:14, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Come on,, there was never a "calculated plan to ban Muslims from our shores". Yes, there was over-the-top campaign rhetoric, but executive orders (even the first one) did not target the largest Muslim countries: Pakistan, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Nigeria, Turkey, Malaysia, etc. Time to move on. — JFG talk 23:03, 26 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Bullshit.- MrX 🖋 23:12, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, bullshit campaign rhetoric. — JFG talk 23:15, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "Bullshit". —Compassionate727 (T·C) 23:18, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Doesn't anybody remember when Obama included Iran, Iraq, Sudan and Syria in the travel restrictions that he signed into law in 2015, or when his DHS expanded the list to include Libya, Somalia and Yemen, calling them "countries of concern"? I don't recall any claims of Muslim bias or outrage against Obama.  The U.S. State Dept. listed Iran, Syria and Sudan as "state sponsors of terrorism", and Iraq, Libya, Somalia and Yemen as "terrorist safe havens".  Oh, but Trump had a "calculated plan to ban Muslims from our shores"?  Got POV? <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 📞📧 23:51, 26 June 2018 (UTC) Adding - the Politifact article I linked to above is dated prior to the modifications made to Trump’s EO. Also, Judge Roberts said of the modified EO:"The [order] is expressly premised on legitimate purposes: preventing entry of nationals who cannot be adequately vetted and inducing other nations to improve their practices," Roberts says. "The text says nothing about religion."  per CNBC 10:38, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I was not going to get involved in this discussion, but could not help myself when yet again we see a Trump fan wanting to talk about Obama. From afar, it looks pathetic. I have news. He has retired. HiLo48 (talk) 00:00, 27 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Adding that the Supreme Court upheld the ban is important or else we have only the older version which leaves the audience wondering the current status if they are not aware of the issues. Not sure on exact wording though. I'd not include "along partisan lines" or anything like that.--MONGO 23:20, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The Court didn’t uphold the ban itself; rather, the Court vacated a preliminary injunction against the (third iteration of) the ban, as the majority found a lack of likelihood of success on the merits. They didn’t rule on the merits themselves. So we can’t say that they actually upheld the ban itself. It seems like a technical distinction, but it is significant in law. Neutralitytalk 03:51, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Question: Can't "implemented after legal challenges" be reasonably interpreted to include the Supreme Court's ruling? I'm not sure it's necessary to mention in the lead at all. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 04:00, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The Court upheld the ban. Every source says so. That includes NBC which Neutrality used a source to force Wikipedia to make a contested, controversial statement in Wikipedia's voice at the IG report article. Jerry the Bellybutton Elf (talk) 13:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "Upheld the ban" is what virtually all sources are saying. --MelanieN (talk) 16:04, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Exactly...so why is Neutrality trying to put his opinions into the article instead of referring to the sources? Jerry the Bellybutton Elf (talk) 00:39, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

 * We certainly do need to change this sentence, and soon. We should get rid of “implemented after legal challenges” which is out of date and inaccurate; the implementations kept getting stopped by lower courts. How about something like this: During his presidency, Trump ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, citing security concerns. In response to legal challenges he revised the ban twice. The third version was upheld by the Supreme Court in June 2018 in a 5-4 ruling. --MelanieN (talk) 16:16, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * the ban also was for some non muslim countries עם ישראל חי (talk) 16:26, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I argued for that point above (that's how he got around the religious discrimination problem). But most sources are saying "Muslim-majority countries" even though it isn't strictly correct for the third version - the one they approved. It looks as if most people want to stay with that wording because reliable sources are using it. --MelanieN (talk) 16:56, 27 June 2018 (UTC) P.S. This is subtle, but: in the sentence where I say "Muslim majority", the wikilink is to his first version, for which that was an accurate description. Then it says that version was revised twice. --MelanieN (talk) 17:17, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * that seems biased to me and inaccurate it just seems like a way to push a biased POV against Trump עם ישראל חי (talk) 19:38, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * MelanieN's version looks good to me. I would know if this addresses 's concerns.- MrX 🖋 17:12, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * We can still do shorter: Trump ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, citing security concerns; after several legal challenges, the Supreme Court upheld the policy's third revision. No need for a date in the lede. No need for the 5–4 split either; keep this for the article body. — JFG talk 17:46, 27 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I would favor the following version: Trump ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries. In response to legal challenges, he revised the ban twice; in 2018, a divided Supreme Court rejected a challenge to the third version of the ban. Neutralitytalk 18:17, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That's excellent, Neutrality. This legal issue is not settled. These particular challenges are settled, but there will be many more challenges -- wait a week or two for the next one. "The Muslim Ban" was not endorsed by the Court. In fact, the majority was rather sparse in its language. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 19:28, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Unless there's a compelling reason to deviate so sharply from what ALL the reporting says, which is "travel ban upheld", I see no reason how any one could support such a convoluted and inaccurate reimagining of the facts. That line reads like someone was looking over the shoulder of Maxine Waters and dictating from her diary. Jerry the Bellybutton Elf (talk) 00:39, 28 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Support 's proposal, although I would prefer to strike "several" preceding "legal challenges" to keep that clause shorter and more balanced. Also, 's wordings above were also good and should probably be integrated into the body. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 02:28, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * What do you think of Neutrality's version:

? <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 02:32, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I would support Neutrality's version. JFG's is acceptable. MelanieN's is good. "Upheld the ban" lacks nuance. Editors poo pooing proposals without offering alternatives are not helping.- MrX 🖋 02:42, 28 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Remove "divided," same problems as saying "along party lines." Also, can someone clarify why we are splitting hairs between "upheld the order" and "rejected a challenge thereunto"? From what I read in the relevant article, the Court ruled that he was within his legal powers described in the Immigration and Nationality Act and did not violate the Constitution, and remanded it to the lower courts for other issues. Rejected the constitutional challenge and upheld the constitutionality seem to me to be synonyms. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 02:55, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Nope. Every source says the "travel ban was upheld". This whole "rejected a challenge" business is somebody's own personal opinions and reimagining of the facts. Can't be doing that. JFG's version is fine, even though it should be said that the ban includes Muslim-majority and non-Muslim-majority countries. Jerry the Bellybutton Elf (talk) 13:25, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Jerry, I have no idea where you're getting your "reimagining" idea. While "upholds" is common, "rejects challenge" is just as common and more technically accurate. Some sources use both phrases in the same article:
 * "High court OKs Trump’s travel ban, rejects Muslim bias claim, Associated Press
 * US Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to Trump's Travel Ban, National Law Journal
 * By a vote of 5-4, the justices rejected a challenge to President Donald Trump’s September 2017 order – often referred to as the 'travel ban'", SCOTUSblog
 * Ultimately, I don't think it matters much. But I think that there's no reason to go with the more technically accurate language when it is just as short and accessible to the reader. Neutralitytalk 13:49, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, can you explain why "rejected a challenge to its constitutionality" is more accurate than "upheld its constitutionality"? —Compassionate727 (T·C) 14:19, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * , sure. The Hawaii v. Trump case was about a preliminary injunction against the travel ban. The Court's decision overturned the preliminary injunction; the Court found that "plaintiffs have not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their constitutional claim" and remanded the case back to the lower courts for further proceedings. So it was about "likelihood of success on the merits" rather than the merits themselves. In practical terms, everyone knows that a decision like this means it's very likely that the travel ban will ultimately be upheld. But the Court didn't rule definitively that the travel ban was constitutional. Hence, "rejected a challenge" is slightly more accurate. Neutralitytalk 14:25, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I see, thank you. I hadn't realized the case was about the injunction rather than the order itself. I further imagine I'm not the only one. Should we clarify that in the lead (i.e. say "struck down a preliminary injunction" rather than "rejected a challenge"), or is that body content? —Compassionate727 (T·C) 14:55, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Either way is fine with me. "Struck down a preliminary injunction" would be more precise, but I'm OK with the more general "rejected a challenge" in the lead section. Neutralitytalk 15:37, 28 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment "Along party lines" is NOT the same as the "along ideological lines" in my proposal. Justices are supposed to be apolitical, but that doesn't mean they don't hold conservative, progressive, or centrist views. "Along ideological lines" is the standard way of referring to this phenomenon. We even have an entire article on the subject. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:06, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sorry, I chose my words carelessly. I was trying to communicate that I am opposed to mentioning the split in the Supreme Court for the same reasons doing so was opposed earlier. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:31, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I support User:Neutrality's version. --MelanieN (talk) 21:09, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I would oppose that: it is way too convoluted for the lede section; to a casual reader, it sounds like Wikipedia is trying to obfuscate the essence of the decision. — JFG talk 21:53, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That's what I'm saying (Neutrality and Melanie). I agree that "rejected the challenge" and "ban was upheld" are basically the same thing. I just don't know why we're twisting the words and trying to cram so much information into one sentence. Personally I like the way the vast majority of sources are reporting it ("travel ban was upheld") because it lends itself to another issue of presidential authority, which was also upheld. If you put something like "travel ban was upheld, after legal challenges from Democratic attorneys general" then you can say both things without getting that complicated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerry the Bellybutton Elf (talk • contribs) 00:07, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposed versions
The discussion is becoming hard to follow, but we seem to have three proposed wordings that have emerged from various arguments. Let's summarize them and see which version can gather the most support.
 * Version A


 * Version B


 * Version C


 * Version D


 * Version E

Survey time! — JFG talk 22:00, 28 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Support B, oppose C, neutral on A. This is the lede section; keep it as short as possible. Details can go in the article body. C is too convoluted and slightly POVish by talking of a "divided" court and omitting the "security concerns". — JFG talk 22:05, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Version B . Accurate, readable, laudably brief. (We are talking about the lede here after all so we have to keep it to the minimum necessary to get the information across.) --MelanieN (talk) 22:07, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Version C. The most accurate (as explained above), readable, and informative. "Citing security concerns" is vague and not necessary; readers can go to the article on the case (Hawaii v. Trump)) if they want to know more. We also don't need the month, as in A. Oppose B as too general. Neutralitytalk 22:49, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Security concerns have been the only official reason for the travel ban ever since its first version, and this wording was upheld by consensus in numerous prior discussions (see #23). We would need to meet a high bar of WP:CCC to remove it, especially now that the Supreme Court has essentially confirmed the President's authority to impose immigration restrictions for security reasons. — JFG talk 23:13, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That's your OR.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 23:21, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * JFG - I don't know what you mean by "only official reason"; the Court expressly did not rule that the " only reason" for the ban was "security" &mdash; rather, the court held that even if an immigration policy was partially based on religious hostility, it would still be sustained if it could "reasonably be understood to result from a justification independent of unconstitutional grounds." In other words, "even if we know that an immigration policy was motivated by blatant official animus against a religion, the policy should be sustained so long as the government proffers some rational national security basis for it." The complexities of this are precisely the reason why we should not be in the business of giving ultra-vague statements like "citing security concerns" in the lead section. Neutralitytalk 23:32, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the legal details, thanks for pointing them out. Be mindful however that I didn't say the Court ruled that security was the only reason for the ban; I merely noted that the executive orders cited only security and vetting concerns as reasons to enact certain travel restrictions; that is a fact. The whole legal dispute revolved around candidate Trump's campaign rhetoric, and whether his provocative words should be taken into account and interpreted as "religious animus", rather than sticking to the four corners of the executive orders he signed after he became President. The Court went further than merely endorsing this particular travel ban because, as you point out, they recognized that the enacted travel restrictions could be upheld for security reasons even if other irrelevant reasons had been advanced. — JFG talk 00:04, 29 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I like version B but I still think "Muslim-majority countries" kind of smells like left-wing talking points. There's nothing in the executive order about race or religion or any of that crap. The travel ban article can get into all the nitty gritty about conspiracy theories behind why the ban was put into place. Jerry the Bellybutton Elf (talk) 00:10, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Justified or not, "Muslim-majority countries" is the wording used by a vast majority of sources when discussing this policy. Wikipedia must follow source coverage, not correct the record, and this turn of phrase gained wide consensus among editors in prior discussions. Think about it: if immigration, terrorism and the Muslim scare had not been such prominent campaign issues, and if the EO had quietly been called "updating travel restrictions on certain high-risk countries", there would have been no controversy, no mass protests, no legal arguments, and no Wikipedians arguing how to describe this mess. — JFG talk 00:23, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * This again is OR. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 01:54, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No, this is talk page discussion to rebut another editor's criticism of an established consensus wording. It would be OR if I suggested to include any of this speculative "what if" scenario in the article. I did no such thing. — JFG talk 02:09, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

In preparing this "survey" you have completely ignored the version I proposed near the very beginning of this section. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:01, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * On purpose, I only kept the most recent proposals, because they took more discussion into account than the earlier ones. If you feel your earlier proposal brings some extra value compared to the later ones, feel free to add it as option D. — JFG talk 02:05, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm dismayed that you should think it is okay to just ignore proposals that came earlier. It makes a mockery of the "survey" process. None of the proposals in your "survey" mention they key point of how SCOTUS voted, which some editors agreed was important. Please do not create a survey with an incomplete list of choices again. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:36, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It was nothing personal, and I have apologized on your talk page. Now somebody anonymously added a version E, and if we end up with 10 versions to pick from, the survey will be useless. We would then switch to a longer discussion with individual questions such as "should we mention security concerns?", "should we mention religion concerns?", "should we say the ban was upheld or that its challenge was rejected?", "should we mention the Supreme Court vote tally?, "should we allude to ideological purposes?", "should we mention the date of the ruling?", and after all of those obtain consensus, some brave soul will produce a final wording that will be submitted to RfC. Phew. I wish life were a bit simpler some days. — JFG talk 02:54, 29 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Support B. Brevity is a virtue. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 05:03, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support B because it's to the point and brief. Would rather, however, see a semantics change to take the focus off of "Muslim countries", because the ban was not focusing on Muslim countries but on terrorism.  As written, it subtly and subliminally says "Trump is an anti-Muslim racist!", which is not NPOV.  My suggestion is to change it to "Cifing security concerns, Trump ordered a travel ban on citizens from countries around the world, several which have a Muslim-majority.  After several legal challenges, the Supreme Court upheld the policy's third revision." <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;">✉ ✓ 16:17, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Winkelvi, your view is not supported by the overwhelming consensus of mainstream reporting and analysis. The mainstream reports that Trump repeatedly and boldly called this a Muslim Ban, and indeed that was the basis for various legal arguments against the action. The mainstream also reports widely and unambiguously that the countries of origin related to US terrorist attacks such as 09/11 were omitted from Trump's order. So please consider these and reconsider your argument above. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 18:43, 29 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Support B - more brief and more clear. <b style="color:#060">L293D</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b> • <b style="color:#000">✎</b>) 22:39, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Support C - It is virtually as brief as version B, while considerably more informative and more factual.- MrX 🖋 22:45, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Support E or C B misstates the Court's decision. We really can't say that. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 23:33, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Support version B: it's the concise and most importantly it covers all of the pertinent facts. It's destined for the lead so verbosity is not optimal. Good job as usual JFG. – Lionel(talk) 02:44, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Version B as it is the most neutral one and fully satisfies UNDUE clause of NPOV.--MONGO (talk) 05:17, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment You participated in this discussion but have not !voted for any of the five versions above. There is wide opposition to the existing language, so let's assume some change will be made. In my humble opinion, one of the five versions should be good enough, and we're well past the point of diminishing returns. Bearing in mind that perfect is the enemy of good, do you care to !vote before this discussion closes? &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  07:11, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - The !voting process was broken because JFG effed up the survey by excluding some of the options from the discussion above. With that said, my !vote is below. -- Scjessey (talk) 10:35, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * This comment is needlessly inflammatory. Most participants added their !vote after your option D was listed, and none except you supported it. — JFG talk 12:35, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it really isn't needless or inflammatory. If it prevents you from doing it again, it will have been totally worth it. The fact that it has attracted little support is, however, of great concern to me, since all other versions fail to include relevant information mentioned in every single source. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:39, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

*Support D because "along ideological lines" is very important and mentioned in all the sources. -- Scjessey (talk) 10:32, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Support B - Let's just get this over with. I don't like it, but I'm voting this way because it's consuming too much oxygen. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:13, 6 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I can live with version C but IMO we should just state the current state of affairs (ban in effect, referred to lower court for ruling) and name the countries. Presenting version F:




 * Reasons: Unless my memory deceives me, none of the acts of terrorism on US soil were committed by citizens of the banned countries. Terrorists who were not citizens or legal residents of the US were from countries (foremost Saudi-Arabia) that are not listed. Trump's "cited security concerns" is Trump pandering to the Trumpbase who were promised a Muslim-ban, and by golly he's gonna give them a Muslim-ban, using North Koreans and Venezuelans as fig leaves for the court. For me, versions A and B are out of the question for this reason alone.  Upholding:  Also wrong if you read past the headlines. The court rejected the challenge and referred the case back to the 9th Circuit for a ruling on the merits, finding that the travel ban did not violate the First Amendment by denying freedom of religion to Muslims. In other words, it found that the travel ban was not, in fact, a Muslim ban. (Vox). For me, versions A, B, D, and E are out of the question for this reason.
 * Also, the section header of the Travel ban section should be moved up a level and get its own level 3 heading (i.e., 7.4 - is that level 3?). People entering the country on temporary visas, including ESTA authorizations (Visa Waiver Program), are not immigrants, or are they?  They're visitors/tourists/travelers. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:40, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe that Version E explicitly states that the revisions were done to remove the taint of religious bias so that a ban could finally withstand a Supreme Court review. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 14:55, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It also says that it went into effect in July 2018 when it's been in effect since last year while the Supreme Court was pondering whatever. People can still apply for visas, and a hundred-something out of 8,000+ received them for urgent medical treatment, family visits, etc. The 1% probably don't have any problem obtaining them. I really don't see how this informal discussion is going to get the "not without the security concerns" and ""not with the security concerns" factions to come to a consensus. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:10, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Basically this entire thread is a mess because some editors started to vote among a cherrypicked group of alternatives that lack clear and complete basis in the RS accounts of what happened. This whole mess should be capped and a new discussion begun to identify key facts, after which at most 2-3 alternatives can be proposed. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 17:53, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Regardless of what you think of the procedure here, there seems to be a clear and solid consensus. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 23:29, 5 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Version B that is my vote. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:36, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Running tally July 6, 2018, 18:00 UTC
Feel free to update this as it changes, or just stick a fork in it. - MrX 🖋 18:03, 6 July 2018 (UTC)