Talk:Donald Trump

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Former good article nomineeDonald Trump was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
In the news Article milestones
June 2, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
February 12, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
September 18, 2016Good article nomineeNot listed
May 25, 2017Good article nomineeNot listed
December 2, 2018Good article nomineeNot listed
July 15, 2019Good article nomineeNot listed
August 31, 2019Featured article candidateNot promoted
In the news News items involving this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on June 12, 2018, and November 9, 2018.
Current status: Former good article nominee

Highlighted open discussions[edit]

Current consensus[edit]

NOTE: Reverts to consensus as listed here do not count against the 1RR limit, per Remedy instructions and exemptions, above. It is recommended to link to this list in your edit summary when reverting, as [[Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensus]], item [n]. To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to purge this page.

01. Use the official White House portrait as the infobox image. (link 1, link 2, link 3) (temporarily suspended by #19 following copyright issues on the inauguration portrait, enforced when an official public-domain portrait was released on 31 October 2017)

02. Show birthplace as "Queens, New York City" in the infobox. No state or country. (link 1, link 2)

03. Omit reference to county-level election statistics. (link)

04. Obsolete
Lead phrasing of Trump "gaining a majority of the U.S. Electoral College" and "receiving a smaller share of the popular vote nationwide", without quoting numbers. (link 1, link 2) (superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)

05. Use Donald Trump's net worth evaluation and matching rankings, from the Forbes annual list of billionaires (currently the March 2019 edition, $3.1B/715th/259th), not from monthly or "live" estimates. (link 1) In the lead section, just write: Forbes estimates his net worth to be $3.1 billion. (link 2, link 3)

06. Do not include allegations of sexual misconduct in the lead section. (link 1, link 2)

07. Superseded by #35
Include "Many of his public statements were controversial or false." in the lead. (link 1, link 2, wording shortened per link 3, upheld with link 4) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019)

08. Mention that Trump is the first president elected "without prior military or government service". (link)

09. Include a link to Trump's Twitter account in the "External links" section. (link)

10. Keep Barron Trump's name in the list of children and wikilink it, which redirects to his section in Family of Donald Trump per AfD consensus. (link 1, link 2)

11. Superseded by #17
The lead sentence is "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman, television personality, politician, and the 45th President of the United States." (link 1, link 2, link 3, link 4, link 5, link 6) (superseded by #17 since 2 April 2017)

12. The article title is Donald Trump, not Donald J. Trump. (link 1, link 2)

13. Auto-archival is set for discussions with no replies for 7 days, manual archival is allowed for closed discussions after 24 hours. (link)

14. Omit mention of Trump's alleged bathmophobia/fear of slopes. (link)

15. Cancelled
There is no consensus to change the formulation of the paragraph which summarizes election results in the lead (starting with "Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, …"). Accordingly the pre-RfC text has been restored, with minor adjustments to past tense.Special:Diff/764846021 No new changes should be applied without debate. (link 1, link 2, link 3, link 4) In particular, there is no consensus to include any wording akin to "losing the popular vote". (link 5) (cancelled by local consensus on 26 May 2017 and lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017)
16. Cancelled
Do not mention Russian influence on the presidential election in the lead section. (link) (cancelled by lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017)

17. The lead paragraph is "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current president of the United States. Before entering politics he was a businessman and television personality." The hatnote is simply {{Other uses}}. (link 1, link 2, link 3, link 4, link 5, link 6, link 7) Amended by lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017 and removal of inauguration date on 4 July 2018. Lower-case "p" in "president" per link 7 and this October 2017 RFC.

18. The "Alma mater" infobox entry shows "The Wharton School (B.S.inEcon.)", does not mention Fordham University. (link 1, link 2)

19. Obsolete
Following deletion of Trump's official White House portrait for copyright reasons, it was replaced by File:Donald Trump Pentagon 2017.jpg. (link 1 for replacement, link 2, link 3, link 4 for background) (replaced by White House official public-domain portrait according to #1 since 31 October 2017)

20. Mention protests in the lead section with this exact wording: His election and policies have sparked numerous protests. (link 1, link 2)

21. Superseded by #39
Omit any opinions about Trump's psychology held by mental health academics or professionals who have not examined him. (link 1, link 2) (superseded by #36 on 18 June 2019, then by #39 since 20 August 2019)

22. Do not call Trump a "liar" in Wikipedia's voice. Falsehoods he uttered can be mentioned, while being mindful of calling them "lies", which implies malicious intent. (link)

23. The lead includes the following sentence: Trump ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, citing security concerns; after legal challenges, the Supreme Court upheld the policy's third revision. (link 1, link 2, link 3, link 4, link 5) Wording updated on 6 July 2018 (link 6) and 23 September 2018 (link 7).

24. Superseded by #30
Do not include allegations of racism in the lead. (link) (superseded by #30 since 16 August 2018)

25. Do not add web archives to cited sources which are not dead. (link 1, link 2)

26. Do not include opinions by Michael Hayden and Michael Morell that Trump is a "useful fool […] manipulated by Moscow" or an "unwitting agent of the Russian Federation". (link)

27. State that Trump falsely claimed that Hillary Clinton started the Barack Obama birther rumors. (link 1, link 2)

28. Include, in the Wealth section, a sentence on Jonathan Greenberg's allegation that Trump deceived him in order to get on the Forbes 400 list. (link 1, link 2)

29. Include material about the Trump administration family separation policy in the article. (link)

30. The lead includes: "Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist." (link 1, link 2, link 3)

31. Do not mention Trump's office space donation to Jesse Jackson's Rainbow/Push Coalition in 1999. (link)

32. Omit from the lead the fact that Trump is the first sitting U.S. president to meet with a North Korean supreme leader. (link 1, link 2)

33. Do not mention "birtherism" in the lead section. (link)

34. Refer to Ivana Zelníčková as a Czech model, with a link to Czechs (people), not Czechoslovakia (country). (link)

35. Include in the lead: Trump has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency. The statements have been documented by fact-checkers, and the media have widely described the phenomenon as unprecedented in American politics. (link)

36. Cancelled
Include one paragraph merged from Health of Donald Trump describing views about Trump's psychology expressed by public figures, media sources, and mental health professionals who have not examined him. (link 1) (paragraph removed per followup RfC yielding consensus #39)

37. Resolved: Content related to Trump's presidency should be limited to summary-level about things that are likely to have a lasting impact on his life and/or long-term presidential legacy. If something is borderline or debatable, the resolution does not apply. (link)

38. Do not state in the lead that Trump is the wealthiest U.S. president ever. (link)

39. Do not include any paragraph regarding Trump's mental health. (link)

40. Include, when discussing Trump's exercise or the lack thereof: He has called golfing his "primary form of exercise", although he usually does not walk the course. He considers exercise a waste of energy, because he believes the body is "like a battery, with a finite amount of energy" which is depleted by exercise. (link)

RfC: books in lead[edit]

A recent discussion saw quite a lot of comments on wanting to change this sentence in the lead: He co-authored several books, including The Art of the Deal. Let's discuss to produce a consensus whether it should remain, or be changed. Which sentence should be present in the lead? starship.paint (talk) 08:10, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

- starship.paint (talk) 08:10, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Survey for books in lead[edit]

  • Option C first choice, Option B second choice - the amount of ghostwriting done on Trump's behalf leaves me uncomfortable with Option A. Reading his tweets, the ghostwriting seems necessary. Between Option B and Option C, as Trump himself is not a publishing company, Option C is preferable. starship.paint (talk) 08:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Option D: omit it altogether as UNDUE for a lead, but will accept published, had published, released, contributed to. Donald Trump CLAIMS to have co-authored the books; other informed parties (including the author and publisher) dispute this. A reasonable reader would not take "publish" to mean he stitched the binding himself, but they would think "co-authored" meant he wrote it, which is not supported by the facts. No one thinks "wrote" means "holds the copyright for." GreatCaesarsGhost 12:53, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Option C or Option D (equally weighted). For me, this is a binary thing. Either we use the accurate "has had published" language (which I freely admit is a little awkward), or we don't have anything at all. Trump is not a publisher or an author, so options A or B would be inaccurate. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:39, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Option B or Option A - One need not be a publishing company to have something published, as per the dictionary definition of the word. May His Shadow Fall Upon You Talk 13:42, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
    @May His Shadow Fall Upon You: You just wrote: One need not be a publishing company to have something published. Absolutely correct, but you do need to be a publishing company to publish something (leaving aside the whole self publishing thing). That fact that you worded your response the way you did argues that option C is the way to go. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:54, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
I think that "published" does not exclude the same meaning present with "has had published". But "has had published" sounds terrible. May His Shadow Fall Upon You Talk 14:06, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
As I said in my comment above, "has had published" sounds a little awkward, but it is at least accurate; however, claiming that Trump published something (or wrote something, frankly) would be wrong. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:09, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Option B or Option A. B sounds much more natural than C, and it's similar in structure to the opening line of the It Takes a Village article. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:59, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Option D first choice with Option C as 2nd. Since there are reliable claims that trump did little to nothing in the authorship of the books best to either leave them off or word it more neutral that he has books published about him but without the addition he was somehow the author of them. ContentEditman (talk) 17:44, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Option C (first choice) or Option D (second choice). The most accurate statement appears to be C: "has had published". Since The Art of the Deal is a fairly commonly known book title, it does seem to warrant inclusion in the lead paragraph. Lindenfall (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Option C or Option D (equally weighted). Agree with Scjessey’s reasons above. —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 21:59, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Option D: omit it altogether as UNDUE for a lead. Since he almost certainly had little to do with their writing, and lies about his role, they do not warrant any mention in the lead, and only short mention in the article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:17, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • B - The usage "published a book" is fairly common, especially where the instigator of the publication, in this case Trump, is not the author. I don't think "published" necessarily entails a press and a truck. As to D. Yes, we do have body content and a separate article for details about this book, but think it was undeniably a significant factor in Trump's early fame, with a brilliant title, and it preceded a lot of other famous Trump branding, such as his TV career and race-related trolling. SPECIFICO talk 16:29, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Option D first choice with (very reluctant) Option C as 2nd. Gandydancer (talk) 16:54, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Option D most certainly. He is not well known for being an author or book publisher, and many politicians have written or published books. If we must include a mention, Option C would be the best method, but removing the word "has" from "he has had". Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:16, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Option C or A seem best of the choices - option A (no change) seems sort of OK because we've not got anything new to really push for a change, and option C seems sort of OK because 'had published' covers the ones he is sole author for as well as the co-authored ones. Though at eighteen, it is "numerous" or "many" rather than "several" books. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:33, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
How many books is Trump the "sole author" of? -- Scjessey (talk) 12:11, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
He may be the only one credited, but no one seriously believes he penned a single word. He isn't capable of such a feat. That's what his biographers tell us. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:37, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Option D. Too messy: you can't easily mention the books without getting into the weeds of his not having written them. Guy (help!) 20:20, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Option A He's a credited author, and that's what we can verify. Art of the Deal is an important book in terms of what it did to his Q score, so I'm against Option D. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:53, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Option A (Summoned by bot) Coretheapple (talk) 19:00, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • First choice A, second choice B – Totally oppose D, because The Art of the Deal has been a key element of Trump's notability, decades before he entered politics, hence DUE for the lead section. — JFG talk 11:59, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
    Bankruptcies have been a key element of Trump's notability, decades before he entered politics, hence DUE for the lead section. See what I did there? -- Scjessey (talk) 12:37, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
    Yeah, JFG's argument doesn't really hold up, as Donald Trump "notability" primarily derived from him being a loud and proud sexual predator and racist, and we're certainly not putting THAT in the lead. Trump was a laughing-stock throughout the 80s, and TAotD was relentless ridiculed contemporaneously as everyone knew Trump inherited most his wealth and had no skill as a deal-maker. It's no more important than the steaks or the board game. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:57, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
    @Scjessey: No objection from me to adding a line about Trump's business fortunes and misfortunes to the lead. His casino ventures and related bankruptcies are indeed part of his notability. @GreatCaesarsGhost: Thanks for your opinion. — JFG talk 20:17, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Discussion for books in lead[edit]

Notifying previous commenters:

This RfC does not include options for "released" rather than "published", or for whether or not to include "ghostwritten" (which could be combined with co-authored/published/released/whatever other word), both of which have previously been discussed. I'm on mobile right now, but Starship or someone else, please add them. - Sdkb (talk) 14:13, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
@Sdkb: - I didn't add them because nobody supported them other than you, and we had 10 people in the previous discussion. Too many options makes it harder to achieve a consensus. Furthermore your proposal was the very first one, at the top of the discussion, surely it would have been the most read. starship.paint (talk) 15:20, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
@Starship.paint: There was support from multiple parties for "ghostwritten" in last year's discussion, and nothing has substantively changed since then. Regarding "released", I'm honestly somewhat perplexed, since I think I made a reasonably solid case for it, but no one has voiced either support or opposition. If anyone has thoughts about it, they might be able to persuade me to withdraw it, but until then, I object to your dismissing it out of hand by excluding it from the RfC. Sdkb (talk) 15:45, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
@Sdkb: - reading the old discussions, yes, there was support for "ghostwritten", but there was also clear rejections of "ghostwritten". The thing is, while in the above discussion no one has voiced either support or opposition for your proposal, the important part is that almost everyone in the above discussion voiced support for a proposal other than yours. starship.paint (talk) 01:54, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I regret to say that this RfC seems to be making things worse. We were either at or close to consensus in the previous thread. Now we have a formal RfC that will bring in additional new editors less familiar with the previous discussions or with the decisions made at The Art of the Deal article. Seems like this is excessively formal and likely counterproductive for a relatively unimportant matter. SPECIFICO talk 23:09, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
    I'm sorry. I tried my best on this. starship.paint (talk) 01:54, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
    No personal criticism intended. It's a result of the persistent "consensus required" tactic even after that sanction has been deprecated in favor of incremental improvement via revert and modification. Perhaps in the future an alternative to an RfC would simply be to ask an outsider to close the discussion thread. Dunno. The politics articles have lost many good editors since the "special sanctions" fiasco of the past year. SPECIFICO talk 13:40, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
    Well, nobody invited an outside closer yet... so I did what I thought was right. starship.paint (talk) 05:44, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
    For the avoidance of doubt, I meant absolutely no criticism of you. From what I've seen you have been one of the most active and clear-minded editors on this article in recent months. I was addressing the the idea that the best is the enemy of the better, and I was suggesting we try to go with the 24-hour BRD model rather than rejecting incremental improvements by reverting back to a flawed imperfect version and tying ourselves in knots on the discussion page. SPECIFICO talk 12:53, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
    Okay cool, @SPECIFICO:. I take zero offense. Perhaps we should try that. starship.paint (talk) 15:34, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@JzG: You do understand that we're only discussing the lead section here? The ghostwriting thing is already undisturbed in the article text. SPECIFICO talk 20:55, 8 September 2019 (UTC) @Muboshgu: Do you have an independent secondary RS that verifies Trump wrote the book? I have not seen anything of the sort, and apparently neither have the editors at the book's standalone article. SPECIFICO talk 00:42, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, I didn't say he wrote the book. I said he's credited as an author. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:28, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Well, I saw that you endorsed option A, which does say in WP's voice that he was the co-author. I have not seen any independent secondary RS verification of that. Have you? SPECIFICO talk 01:50, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
The cover of the book. He's listed as an author. And everything written about it confirms he's credited as an author. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:56, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Muboshgu, I am trying to be very clear and simple. The article text you endorse, with A states, in WP's voice, that Trump is the co-author of the book. Surely, you do not consider the cover of the book an independent, secondary, Reliable Source for that statement? Your "credited as an author" is not what option A says. Option A says he was the co-author. That's quite a different statement, and it's one that the article text does not support, per the cited references. SPECIFICO talk 12:51, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
SPECIFICO, Yes, very much so. It's fine in the body because there is space for the context. In the lede, not so much. We don't need to list every grift there. Guy (help!) 09:46, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

@Mandruss and JFG: Would either of you mind closing this RfC? If not, could you ask for an admin close? It's just sitting here now, and I believe people have mostly forgotten about it. Mgasparin (talk) 04:03, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Won't close this myself, as I'm a participant. Too early to ask for a formal close: RfCs are supposed to run for 30 days, unless consensus is obvious (not the case here). Let's wait. — JFG talk 08:19, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
RfCs are supposed to run for 30 days, unless consensus is obvious (not the case here). In my opinion that's a common misconception arising from the bot de-listing interval. If RfCs generally run for 30 days, it's because that's easier than fighting the misconception, not because they generally need that much discussion. This is a relatively minor issue, and I'd ask for formal close whenever discussion falls to some undefinable point. ―Mandruss  08:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Correction: It's more than my opinion, per Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Duration. ―Mandruss  08:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Won't close this myself, as it's been shown I'm not good at closing discussions like this one. Too much left brain, I'm afraid. ―Mandruss  08:23, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
All right, that's fine. I don't think consensus is going to ever become obvious here though. Mgasparin (talk) 17:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


The list of attributes at the foot of the main article would be enhanced by the inclusion of self-hatred. Like his father before him, Donald Trump used until recent years to maintain that his grandfather Frederick Trump had been a Swedish immigrant from Karlstad rather than a German draft-dodger from Kallstadt. This misinformation persisted in his autobiography "The Art of the Deal." This behavior has been attributed by commentators to anti-German sentiment in the United States starting from the time of the two world wars.

Something similar might account for the otherwise incongruous combination of striking military postures and denigrating war veterans while himself having avoided compulsory military service. The reams of published comment on DT must include references to these aspects of his behavior. NRPanikker (talk) 22:17, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

And even if the OP provides sources, we should be mindful of BLP constraints and the recent RfC consensus to not discuss Trump's mental health in this article. — JFG talk 12:07, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
The self-hate bit is Original Research. Ergo, nix. We need not get into BLP or additional OR associating "self hate" with "mental health". SPECIFICO talk 14:24, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Self-hatred is not a mental illness, rather a part of one's make-up that affects how they think, react and behave in certain circumstances. Regarding BLP, is Trump even a person at present? King James VI said, "Subject and King are clean different things." NRPanikker (talk) 19:11, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Maybe self-hatred isn't technically a mental illness, but it certainly isn't a psychologically healthy behavior. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:00, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Height listed is incorrect[edit]

Under "Health and lifestyle" wiki states although at 6 ft 3 in (1.91 m) and 243 lb this is incorrect, and must be edited to 6'2" 1.8796 meters — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:56, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Please provide a source for this data. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
To my surprise, [1] [2] [3]. It looks as if the height is keeping pace with the weight in recent years. I would say that the 6'3", like the "co-authored books" thing, is an extraordinary claim from non-independent sources and should be treated accordingly. It's been about 30 months since we discussed these "medical reports" and I suspect that some of the editors who previously took them at face value may have revised their opinions. So it's at least worth hearing what others thing should be done about IP's request. SPECIFICO talk 21:22, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
The taller height may be his from an earlier age. People do shrink as they age. Has he made any recent claims?--MONGO (talk) 22:16, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
So to stay ahead of the curve, maybe 6'1" for shrinkage? He was at Obama's 6'2" 3 years ago. SPECIFICO talk 22:32, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
I just read that Obama was 6'1". Unless we get some official updated height from a medical exam tabloid speculations should be avoided. Apparently based on his advertised weight, the difference of one inch extra in height (6'3" instead of 6'2") makes him overweight instead of obese.--MONGO (talk) 23:10, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
So ignoring any shrinkage in office that would put Trump's true height at 6'1", not adjusted for elevator shoes or hair mass. SPECIFICO talk 23:29, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Are we really discussing this? Facepalm DuhJFG talk 09:21, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── An argument can be made about removing this completely. Trump obviously lies about his height and weight out of vanity, and he has instructed people to lie on his behalf. For any other president this would be scandalous, but there are at least 10 new things more scandalous than this every week. Trump clearly wants to downplay the "obese" moniker, and speaking as someone who has been obese for 32 years I can totally understand, but given the weight (pun intended) of all the other shocking Trump-related things, I no longer regard this as notable. You could even call it fat shaming. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:56, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I removed height and weight. There is no independent RS sourcing for this and it's trivia. The physician's conclusion that he's "clinically obese" is sufficient. SPECIFICO talk 13:59, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Okay, that seems reasonable given that the source specifically mentions his obesity. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:46, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Aside: I am a gnat's cock over 6ft and I am a lot taller than Arnold Schwarzenegger. I almost didn't recognise him in the lift in the hotel because he was like 5'9" or so, I thought it was a lookalike, as Arnie is always stated to be over 6ft. Guy (help!) 15:39, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
    How refreshing to learn that a Wikipedian once shared a lift with a barbarian! — JFG talk 16:29, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately, he's not been back. Guy (help!) 16:53, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Batteries question for those unheard from[edit]

JFG and Mandruss suggested I do this as another thread limited to the bit asking about the batteries phrase recently added at the end of the Donald Trump#Health and lifestyle section, so:

For the three-quarters who did not ask for this “batteries” phrase, are you opposed to that ?

Answer (or other thought) below please. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:59, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Specifically pinging the ones who did not previously speak to it:

Replies to pings[edit]


User:SPECIFICO Well, this is looking for what folks think about the “battery” closing to the added sentences, from those who had not voiced anything about it in the last discussion. You voiced in favor so weren’t pinged, but circa three quarters of the editors were inputting about other things and said nothing about “batteries” either way. I wanted to find out what (if anything) that bulk of folks thought, and in a roundabout way JFG/Mandruss directed me to do a new separate thread. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:18, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I personally don't care, the sentence is fine either way to me. I !voted before the other options were added, and I didn't see the need to !vote again after options C and D were added. @Markbassett: I think we are all tired of this discussion, can we please move on? Thanks. Mgasparin (talk) 05:19, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Look, I'm happy to discuss whether the "batteries" quote is worth including, but I can't support your process of selective pinging, still referring to the previous RfC. Just ask a straight question for/against that quote, and don't ping anyone. — JFG talk 06:31, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
    I agree. He can't unping, but he could at least close his own thread as withdrawn. Or somebody else could close it as another process misstep, and I would support that. ―Mandruss  06:38, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
    Umm, what? I note that directed pings were what was used before in a generic ask which got limited response... this seems a bit similar. Markbassett (talk) 05:16, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I think Option A: "Trump does not exercise, viewing it as a waste of energy" represents the best choice. It says the most with the fewest words. References to golf are superfluous. The subject of "exercise" is significant enough to stand on its own. We are telling the reader Trump's view on exercise. (I had voted differently in the past. I am changing my position on this.) Bus stop (talk) 11:42, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) This has been discussed so many times in (seemingly) the last 5 minutes that I no longer care. I continue to think "Trump does not exercise, viewing it as a waste of energy." is the best of all the choices, and I am unlikely to change my mind unless/until something new from reliable sources becomes available. And there's no need to ping me to announce a new thread, because I read them all. Reserve pings for drawing attention to responses in older discussions, or when threading is confusing, or when an editor has apparently been inactive in a topic area for a bit longer than normal. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:27, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Please start over, link to the article text and previous discussions you reference and state the question so that it can be understood by one and all. Personally, I have two immediate reactions: 1. This article has too many undue synthy tidbits that suggest Trump is corrupt, a racist, a narcissist, a privileged nitwit etc. etc. -- these are each on their face undue and unencyclopedic. 2. There are increasing numbers of RS (mostly not day-to-day media) references that address the same issues and events in Trump's life from a broader perspective and provide reasoned, evidence-based, and DUE assessments of the same issues. I don't recall supporting the "batteries" bit but if I did, I retract pending a complete statement of the issue. 3. The editing environment here seems not to be consensus-based but, even worse than ever, enabling vetos of article improvements by even a single editor. If this is how the page is to work, then the 24-hour BRD experiment should be abandoned. I think it should first have been given a fair try. How can we attract new editors to these articles amid legalistic quibbling over nonsense? SPECIFICO talk 13:24, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: When has an article improvement been vetoed by a single editor? Diffs please. ―Mandruss  21:29, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
User:SPECIFICO acknowledge your retracting support for “batteries”. You had supported the paragraph including it at 21:07, 22 August, though that post seemed somewhat contradictory as it also strongly opposed part of the paragraph. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:24, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I still think Option A: "Trump does not exercise, viewing it as a waste of energy" is the best choice. As I said before it gets right to it and it's what he's said. The bit about the body having limited energy sounds a bit OR in that it sounds misleading to me. What I think he probably meant was, only so much time and energy in a 24 hour period, and he wants to use it for something he believes is more productive. Bodding (talk) 02:56, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • The more I think about it, the more it seems to fit better in an article about human longevity and the benefits of healthy exercise. We don't have to add everything Trump says, especially if it's criticism considering his age and seemingly boundless energy. How does inclusion serve our readers? I'm of the mind that it comes across more as pointless criticism, making it quite unencyclopedic. Also keep in mind that when his term is over, there will probably be a lot of whittling down as the political motivations wane and more historians and academics start publishing facts and actual results which will replace all the speculation. RECENTISM and allegations of Russian collusion come to mind. Atsme Talk 📧 15:27, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Presidency section is redundant with Presidency article. Saves 100Kb space to merge redundant material.[edit]

The Trump biography is presently templated for length issues. When his Presidency article was templated last January nine months ago, I was able to save 100KB in that article by merging the Foreign Policy section there with the Trump Foreign Policy article on this link [4]. This worked last January on the Presidency article, and now a similar redundancy can save about 100Kb in the Trump biography article here since the "Presidency section" here is redundant with the Presidency article for Trump. It is possible to save the entire section space here by linking to the Presidency article and then merging a significantly shortened version of that section on Presidency here into the "Political career" section directly above it here as a subsection. That saves nearly 100Kb by not duplicating redundant material in this Trump Biography article which is already covered in detail in the Trump Presidency article. CodexJustin (talk) 14:45, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

A similar proposal failed to reach consensus in July, see Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 101#Transclude Presidency?. ―Mandruss  14:53, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for this comment and link. I have placed this as a 1RR edit to show that the space saving is over 100Kb. CodexJustin (talk) 15:24, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
There's no way we can remove a bunch of information about his presidency from this article. His presidency is the most important thing there is to report about him. If we want to trim material that is redundant with other articles, trim the business or family sections. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:34, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
MelanieN Yes, that's a good point. There's a lot there that could be trimmed while still keeping in mind that this article is his biography. Bodding (talk) 23:57, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • About the length maintenance tag I think it should be removed from the top of the article. Having a standard tag at the top inviting editors to remove content from this article where almost every large removal of content to reduce size will be challenged and discussed endlessly on the talk page seems like a bad idea to me. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:03, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
It's a good idea to invite editors to think of ways that this article's size can be reduced. After all, only extended confirmed editors can make any changes to the article. I encourage efforts by CodexJustin and others to propose drastic reductions in size like this, by providing a summarised version of large sections which have their own articles. In the case of Trump's presidency, there are many articles about it. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:22, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
I agree that some sections of this article can be reduced dramatically if spinoff articles cover the content better. But I oppose any notion of eliminating the Presidency section, which would be unprecedented in the biography of any U.S. president. I think that the Business career and Media career sections are much better candidates for this type of treatment. Take a look at George W. Bush and Barack Obama, the two other presidential biographies of the Wikipedia era. Take a look at other biographies of presidents who were already very famous at the time of their election, such as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Ulysses S. Grant and Dwight D. Eisenhower. All these articles have both robust Presidency sections and even more detailed "Presidency of . . ." spinoff articles. We should maintain that model for the Trump article, since his presidency is by far the most historically important part of his biography. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:03, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Trim Presidency, do not eliminate business and media. More of his life, fame, and personal events happened then and it’s not less the problem. The BLP article needs to everywhere try to be concise and to filter harder to be BLP and to things with lasting impact. The Eisenhower article manages *eight* years of Presidency and his prior considerably more historic life without the help of ~1000 side articles, this just needs the hard effort of pruning story-du-jour and trivia. Keep the maintenance tag up until it’s no longer an oversized article, if ever. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:49, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
    I agree with Markbassett, and I'd be particularly eager to see her proposals for some cuts that substitute long-term perspective for lists of media dust-ups. SPECIFICO talk 18:47, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • @Cullen328, Markbassett, and Onetwothreeip: There seems to be a view among the editors responding above that trying the same approach I did on the Presidency section might work better if applied to either the Business section or the Media section instead. Let me know if I can assist on either of these. When I reduced the Presidency section here using a 150-word length limit, there appeared to be concerns that this was too short. Maybe a 400-word limit or 700-word limit on summaries would work better before the more lengthy remaining narratives are merged into the "sister" Trump articles. The Trump biography article is over 400Kb going on 500Kb, while the Trump Presidency article is over 300Kb going on 400Kb, both of them are much too long and have been templated for length by other editors. If there is any consensus for a word length that is practical, then it might be possible to make progress on reducing the size of these very long Wikipedia articles. The redundancy between the presidency section here in the Trump biography article and the Trump Presidency article indicates a very high degree of duplication of material. Let me know if such a word-length limit approach is useful, while merging the more lengthy remaining narratives into the "sister" Trump articles. CodexJustin (talk) 17:06, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
    Taking a quick look at the Presidency section, I see inconsistent levels of detail and lots of OR as to what's significant enough to be in this biography. For example, why doesn't the "early" section mention hiring and firing Mike Flynn as the first of his many DNI? The entire larger Presidency sections could be consolidated and should be written in summary style, rather than the itemized or play-by-play that's there now. SPECIFICO talk 18:22, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
    Something like this, maybe? ―Mandruss  07:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I've always thought that the Donald Trump article should be much smaller than it is, and cover only the most enduring aspects of his presidency. The remainder can go into the spin-off article Presidency of Donald Trump. In practice, this might be tough. Anything Trump-related is a beacon for WP:RECENTISM, and editors seem intent on covering everything in excruciating levels of detail. So I'm sure there would be disagreement on what to keep... but you're 100% right that there is an extreme level of redundancy here. May His Shadow Fall Upon You Talk 14:12, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Include accounts of Donald Trump not being a racist[edit]

There are many people who know Donald Trump (including to a personal level, and including many people of colour) who say that Donald Trump is not a racist. I think these accounts should be mentioned in the 6.4 Racial views section of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbruen (talkcontribs) 22:36, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Donald Trump has stated several times that he is “the least racist person”. He has improved the lives of minorities more than any modern presidency with his economic policies (lowest unemployment rates in black and other minority groups), he pardoned a black boxer, Jack Johnson — who was convicted for travelling with a white girlfriend across state lines and he has been a friend of Tiger woods and played golf with him and even given him a presidential award. He certainly has been insensitive and politically incorrect on racial matters at times, but there is evidence that he is not a racist too. This article is not NPOV on this matter as these evidences are not sourced and summarised in the article. I long wanted to say something but figured anything positive or neutral about Trump tends to get battled out of the article and saw it as a waste of time.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:47, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
There is no compelling reason to credit Trump's economic policies for low unemployment rates He didn't flip a magic switch to make it happen. Just sayin'. soibangla (talk) 22:53, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

The fact that someone doesn't always ski does not prove they are not a skier. Likewise the fact that someone doesn't always act in a racist manner does not prove they are not a racist. Imo. Wanderer57 (talk) 18:43, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

"Some of my best friends are skiers." SPECIFICO talk 19:12, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Then and now. -- Scjessey (talk)

In keeping with WP:NPOV I think we should be giving balance to the two sides of the story on Trump's alleged racism. I think a fair point is being made by Kbruen and Literaturegeek. Bus stop (talk) 20:21, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

That is the opposite of what WP:NPOV says. The policy explicitly days we must not create equal balance. If only I had a dime for every user who never read NPOV and thought it was about equal balance. What NPOV actually says is that we should dispassionately present a factual overview as can be established by sources. Jeppiz (talk) 23:46, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. It's amazing how often people misunderstand WP:NPOV. "Giving balance to the two sides of the story" would be akin to Trump's "there are very fine people on both sides." There aren't really "two sides" anyway. Unless there's a different version of Trump on the other side of the looking glass. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:17, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
I find for instance "Manhattan Institute fellow Heather Mac Donald comes to the president’s defense in a new Wall Street Journal op-ed [...] Mr. Trump rarely uses racial categories in his speech or his tweets," argues Mac Donald.[5] So it seems not all think Trump is racist. Wouldn't we want to represent opinions that assert that Trump is not racist in a section with the heading of Racial views? Bus stop (talk) 02:39, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
According to what I understand from WP:NPOV, Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. WP:NPOV indeed tells us to Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views.. I would argue, however, that this doesn't mean only not promoting views as 50/50 when they aren't, but also making sure to include opposite views with mentions like despite 9 out of 10 people thinking X, there are some people that are thinking Y. After such an issue has been brought up, non inclusion is a willing act of dismissing a certain point of view, making it seem like all people, 10 out of 10, are thinking X, which is against attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias. At least that's how I see WP:NPOV. Kbruen (talk) 04:32, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
I would also like to add that, considering Trump's character (he loves drama and sparks it on purpose; he enjoys how the news is constantly talking about him, even if the talk is negative mostly), in my personal opinion, accounts from people who personally know Trump (and especially people of colour) are more important than what some columnist from NYT or pundit from MSNBC thinks. Again, in my personal point of view and considering what people who actually know Trump say, it's likely that he isn't a racist but says racist stuff on purpose every now and then just to fuel the media. Kbruen (talk) 05:01, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────@Kbruen: - I would like to see you providing reliable sources that Trump is not a racist. Pardoning a black person does not count unless the source says that that act shows that Trump is not a racist. starship.paint (talk) 09:07, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

An excess of OR-like reasoning, passing as editorial judgment, continues to be a problem on this page. Our most experienced editors do it regularly. ―Mandruss  09:24, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
@Kbruen: "...considering what people who actually know Trump say, it's likely that he isn't a racist but says racist stuff on purpose every now and then just to fuel the media." Even if that were true, that is not fundamentally different from racism. It would be indirect racism, but racism just the same. The key thing to understand here is that reliable sources overwhelmingly regard Trump as a racist, which is actually a pretty remarkable thing given how cautious the media is at putting negative labels on people. While it is true there are some sources that say Trump is not (or may not) be a racist, these are few and far between - basically outliers. -- Scjessey (talk) 10:48, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
@Scjessey: Should we not take into account that, recently, the reliable sources are anything but cautious on putting negative labels on people on the conservative side? And also that most of the media, the reliable sources have a political view against Trump, hence having a conflict of interest when calling him a racist? It is quite undeniable that most of the media (the notable exception in case of TV being Fox) is against Trump. Kbruen (talk) 10:58, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
No. It is called "mainstream media" for a reason. As soon as we start picking and choosing which reliable sources should have prominence based on our perception of their political leanings, rather than treating the entire body of the media as a whole, we may as well start burning books. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:19, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
@Scjessey: In that case, I'm sure there is reliable media around that says Trump is not a racist, at least enough to warrant a Hey, jsyk, not everybody says Trump is racist in there. Kbruen (talk) 12:46, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
@Kbruen: - then you find it, and you present it here. Okay? starship.paint (talk) 12:48, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
@Kbruen: This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the problem. A tiny percentage of reliable sources say that Trump isn't racist, or is at least less racist than everyone else says he is. That's a fringe opinion not shared by a preponderance of reliable sources. When something is an outlier like that, it is absolutely not "balance" or "neutral" to mention it. In fact, it is the opposite. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:04, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
@Kbruen: Thanks for that fine piece on conspiracy theories. Reliable sources do not become less reliable because they have a negative view of Trump, as you seem to believe. Most reliable sources have pretty negative views of Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin as well, it doesn't mean we search out fringe sources to provide "balance" No, I'm not comparing Trump to Hitler. I'm making a point about false equivalence. Jeppiz (talk) 11:22, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Jeppiz, your comment only makes sense if you were addressing an editor who wanted to remove all commentary suggesting Trump is racist in some form or have the content as 50/50. Yes, reliable sources can be biased so we as wikipedians strive summarise differing viewpoints, within policy and guidelines. Also, nobody is advocating using fringe sources, e.g., a blog or other poor quality source. We currently have 6 paragraphs denouncing Trump as inherently racist, yes most sources criticise him for saying racist things or even being a racist but if reliable sources can be located that indicate a differing point of view it would be worth while adding a short paragraph per WP:DUE, WP:NPOV etc for balance.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 11:31, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
@Kbruen: - if you can't accept the usage of reliable sources, you are not suited for editing Wikipedia, much less this topic. starship.paint (talk) 11:52, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
What about if a well-respected political commentator such as Candace Owens expressed the opinion that Trump was not racist—would that warrant inclusion in our "Racial views" section? Bus stop (talk) 12:15, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Candace Owens is about as far from "well-respected political commentator" as one could possibly get. She is frequently describe as an openly racist demagogue. How on earth would her saying that Trump isn't a racist be of any relevance? Jeppiz (talk) 12:27, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
So, it is your opinion that she has so little standing that her opinion doesn't matter? Bus stop (talk) 12:33, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
@Bus stop: - you've got to be joking me. Candice Owens, who said that the main problem with Hitler was that he wanted to "globalize". [6] Globalism is what I don't want … If Hitler just wanted to make Germany great and have things run well — OK, fine. The problem is ... he had dreams outside of Germany. He wanted to globalize. He wanted everybody to be German ... I don’t really have an issue with nationalism. I really don’t. It's important to retain your country's identity" Candice Owens, [7][8] who was once a frequent figure on Alex Jones' far-right conspiracy theory website Infowars ??? starship.paint (talk) 12:38, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Starship.paint—you don't have to ping me. I have the computer implanted in my head. Thanks. Bus stop (talk) 12:41, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
OK. starship.paint (talk) 12:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
@Jeppiz: Thank you for the unfounded assumption. Sources become less reliable when they claim some things that are false. For example, CNN promotes themselves as a neutral news agency, though they published a significant number of stories that were wrong to certain degrees, all the mistakes were in such ways that they affect (R), conservatives or Trump, and then, after the misleading stories had their effect, they issue a correction that barely anybody notices and that's it. No such mistakes were made that affected the other side of the political spectrum. Based on this, I would argue that even mainstream, reliable sources can be wrong and should be treated as such. Kbruen (talk) 12:48, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
@Kbruen: - humans aren't perfect, everyone makes mistakes. Of course mainstream media can be wrong. We can determine that on a case-by-case basis for each incident. But, if you're arguing that CNN is fundamentally biased to the point of being unreliable, then I point you to WP:RSN, go ahead and get CNN declared as an unreliable source. You are going to get absolutely nowhere by effectively declaring here that the mainstream media is unreliable on Trump. starship.paint (talk) 12:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Larry Elder writes "Democrats used to say the same kinds of things that Trump is saying right now, but now that Trump is saying them, he’s harsh, he’s unfair, he’s xenophobic, if not racist".[9] Isn't Larry Elder implying that Trump is not racist? Bus stop (talk) 13:18, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
He is saying, at a minimum, that much of the criticism of Trump being racist is unfair, false, exaggerated, hypocritical etc. I don’t think he is saying Trump doesn’t and never has had a racist bone or thought at any point in his life though. This is the type of viewpoint that must be included to achieve NPOV.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 13:46, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
If our article is going to rag on Trump for his policies at the southern border and its racist implications, as it does at this time, it might represent an element of balance to quote Larry Elder saying that the "Democrats used to say the same kinds of things that Trump is saying right now, but now that Trump is saying them, he’s harsh, he’s unfair, he’s xenophobic, if not racist". I am suggesting that our article should not be presenting Trump's alleged racism as a one-sided story. It is nuanced. The answer is dependent on whose opinion one solicits. Bus stop (talk) 15:02, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't understand the point. We're not saying he invented racism or is the only racist in the World. O3000 (talk) 16:01, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
It is not difficult to understand, seriously.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:20, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
That really doesn't explain the point, does it? O3000 (talk) 17:50, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────This is going nowhere. Please don't respond to repeated soapbox and denial of NPOV. SPECIFICO talk 16:20, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Minor typo under Presidency > Domestic Policy[edit]

"He withdraw the US from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations"

Withdraw should be withdrew. I don't have 500 edits so I can't edit the article myself. Thanks. Johnmyster (talk) 06:22, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. ―Mandruss  06:54, 17 September 2019 (UTC)