Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 71

Archive 65

←

Archive 69

Archive 70

Archive 71

Archive 72

Archive 73

→

Archive 75

Wikinews

I mentioned this in passing somewhere else on this page but maybe it might be worth repeating. A few people who get so much media attention that at times you could write full-length books on several individual months of their lives, like Trump, tend to create situations here where during the height of the popular discussion articles about them and related topics here get huge in content and number of references, and then cut down by removing or relocating material. In the process of all that, a lot of the material that people spend their limited volunteer time to add here gets reduced or removed altogether. Alternatively, over at wikinews, if for instance some editors collaborated over there for a daily POTUS or White House or Washington article or section, those articles would remain intact and that material more readily available into the long term despite any future cutbacks here. Just an idea, anyway. John Carter (talk) 20:37, 6 January 2018 (UTC) John Carter (talk) 20:37, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, but the question is who's up for it. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to take from Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 139#Straw poll on the current view of WP:NOT#NEWS, as there was "no clear consensus", but it's recent and relevant to your comments. Less than six weeks ago this RfC concluded that "there seems to be a near-unanimous consensus that Wikinews is effectively dead and sending our readers to such a project will be a dis-service." ―Mandruss ☎ 23:39, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

That is the point. Wikinews is dead and not overcrowded. Editors here could easily help out there, especially with such a delicate topic, instead of having their work torn to bits here. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

You hope to resurrect Wikinews? ―Mandruss ☎ 00:11, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

"...topics here get huge in content and number of references, and then cut down by removing or relocating material. In the process of all that, a lot of the material that people spend their limited volunteer time to add here gets reduced or removed altogether."

That's a huge violation of WP:PRESERVE. That should not happen. We fill an article until it bursts, and then we spinoff content into sub-articles. We're here to build, not break down. That means we try to make Wikipedia bigger. It's bytes, not paper. We have an assignment from Jimbo: Document the "sum total of human knowledge". Go for it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

"Sum total of human knowledge" is a bit vague, don't you think? I'm not aware that Jimbo has ever said precisely what he meant by that, and he would be the last to say he's the ultimate authority around here anyway. It was an opinion from an above-average Wikipedia editor.
Taking the phrase literally—"anything any human has ever known, no matter how minute or mundane"—there is not enough server storage on the planet. Assuming you don't take it so literally, where to draw the line is a matter of wide disagreement. So the phrase was a rhetorical device that isn't particularly useful in discussions like this. To assert that something is yellow is pointless if there is wide disagreement on the definition of yellow.
Per WP:ONUS, etc, PRESERVE is not meant to protect anything that some editors think should be in articles, even if it otherwise passes the letter of content policy. If consensus is to break down, we properly break down. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:43, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I obviously don't take it that far ("no matter how minute or mundane"). It must receive RS coverage enough for inclusion (notability is not a factor for inclusion). Yes, we do often need to tweak and break down content, but we should seek to improve and save, and move into sub-articles if necessary. Outright deletion of the hard, good faith, efforts of editors creates ill will and loss of motivation. We lose good editors that way. They have followed all policies and guidelines, their work has been accepted, and then it gets trashed by someone who often wasn't even involved in the creation process at the article. That is so wrong. All content that is properly sourced should be treated with care. I have sometimes saved content by moving it to a more appropriate article. That's a good option if an article develops in another direction and the content no longer is a good fit. Treat proper content with care, and respect the hard work of other editors. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:35, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Content in wikipedia must also be encyclopedic. A lot of material regarding current events and particularly current controversies, particularly the day to day stuff, is sometimes at best dubiously encyclopedic. Certainly the sometimes intense battles for mention in the lede are at best dubiously useful in both the long term and the short term. And, again, I refer to the previously mentioned TomKat article which seems to have been trimmed of a great deal of material before the final eventual merge back into Tom Cruise. In the heat of the moment, particularly for topics that stimulate strong emotional responses from all sides, it can be really hard to tell what material will really finally wind up being really encyclopedic. A lot of the current events material really, ultimately, often winds up being thought to not be encyclopedic. And all that doesn't even take into account whether the sometimes random or emotionally inspired spinout articles that are created as opposed to others ultimately lead to remotely balanced and neutral coverage. Particularly for topics which are still current, like living people, where the very strong likelihood of additional, possibly more important, information being generated later may have to be addressed in a way which is ultimately reduce the amount of space to other topics. This is an encyclopedia and the primary purpose is to summarize material, not to reproduce it in toto. That sort of thing is more appropriate for books, which presumably would include effective books, like collections of news articles.

Ultimately, I cannot see us ultimately keeping content here in the quantity that would equate the theoretically possible monthly books on Trump I mentioned earlier might contain. And on some topics, like this one, there does seem to me to be a bit of a presupposition that an RfC today will necessarily be binding after still further developments. That never happens. The best way to preserve the non-summarized detailed information on any widely covered topic is to preserve it in a place where such information is expected to be preserved, like newspaper archives, rather than in the history of a wikipedia page which in the future may well become like TomKat an invisible redirect which many people won't even know was a separate article in the first place. John Carter (talk) 19:01, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 January 2018

Donald Trump attended both Fordham University and the University of Pennsylvania, to which he transferred. This is not outlined in his infobox whereas, on Warren Buffet's page, it's clear which universities he had attended. This is also the case for, say, Elon Musk's page. It is not explicitly outlined that he transferred, however, it is clear that he attended multiple universities. I believe Trump's alma mater should be inclusive of all of the places he had studied in.

e.g. the infobox should be either:
Fordham University (transferred out)
University of Pennsylvania (B.S.)

or

Fordham University
University of Pennsylvania (B. S.)

as two examples.

Woodopal (talk) 12:43, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done: Consensus was for the current version; consensus is needed before requesting an edit Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:47, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

De-capitalize "President" in the first sentence

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Current:

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current President of the United States, in office since January 20, 2017.

Proposed:

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current president of the United States, in office since January 20, 2017.

MOS:JOBTITLES recently underwent a clarifying revision backed by an RfC. AFAICT, the guideline has been basically stable since October of last year. The revision affects capitalization of the various forms and usages of "president". Except for the first sentence, I have already brought this article into compliance with the revised guideline without objection. Since the first sentence is covered by #Current consensus #17 (established before the guideline revision), I am seeking an amendment to that consensus to de-capitalize "President" in the first sentence.

The applicable part of the guideline is part of its bullet 3, ...is not preceded by a modifier (including a definite or indefinite article). In this case, "President of the United States" is preceded by not one but three modifiers: "the", "45th", and "current". Our construction is not substantially different from one of the examples given there, Nixon was the 37th president of the United States.

I'm aware that most or all other presidents' BLPs capitalize this form. Compliance with the revised guideline would also require changing the bodies (and some titles) of many other articles related to U.S. presidents. I would happily change everything fell-swoop in maybe one week of feverish editing, but that approach seems to attract accusations of disruption even when clearly supported by consensus-backed guidelines. The alternative is to live with some inconsistency until everything can be changed at a slower pace per WP:Wikipedia is a work in progress. While it largely depends on the amount of pushback from editors who disagree with the guideline, I don't think it should take longer than ~3 months to finish the job. I think this is as good a place to start as any.

• Support as proposer ―Mandruss ☎ 15:57, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose "President of the United States" is the formal title of a head of state and when used in that context should always be capitalized. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:15, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• This is not a re-litigation of the RfC that backs the guideline revision. I think WP:CONLEVEL applies. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:17, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support I withdraw my oppose. After double checking the Chicago Manual of Style, I see that I was wrong in the particular usage. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks, but for the record we have a manual of style independent from external style guides, while our consensus process takes them into account. No doubt they were considered in the RfC that backs this guideline revision, and it considered more style guides than CMOS alone. In other words, it would change nothing for our purposes if CMOS (or any other style guide) differed from JOBTITLES. We don't debate MoS at article level, and for very good reason. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - This "problem" (if that's what it is) extends to the articles of almost every current president of countries that have presidents, not just the United States. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:42, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - It is important to distinguish between a formal title and an occupational description (regardless of what MOS:JOBTITLES, which is only a style guideline, says). In the first sentence of the lede, the use of "the" indicates it is a formal title, hence "President of the United States" is appropriate. If we are to use the occupational description construct, it would be something like Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current American president, in office since January 20, 2017. I think the difference is clear. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:42, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• Sure, if MoS and the underlying consensus process mean nothing, discussions like this one are a waste of time, and Wikipedia will forever be a random and arbitrary mix of compliant and non-compliant content (this article already is). Multiple people holding your view !voted in the RfC and they lost. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:53, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• @Mandruss: - Did you mean for your response to be excessively antagonistic, or was it just one of those times where someone's tone is not clear from what they've written? -- Scjessey (talk) 17:35, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• Not only did I not mean it to be, but I disagree that it was. My tone was intended to be very direct and slightly annoyed. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:12, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I think it is reasonable. He is both the President of the United States(title) and president of the United States. If it were to be a title, it'd be serving as President of the United States. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support. This is how we treat other people's job titles. I don't think the distinction between a "formal title" and an "occupational description" is relevant either. People who have e.g. "Professor of [some discipline]" as their formal job title at a university generally have their titles written in lower case on Wikipedia. The same is true with many, many other people in different professions. They and their employers often capitalize their formal job titles, while we don't. --Tataral (talk) 16:49, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2)I find it interesting that Nixon, despite being the example, still hasn't been changed. Here's the RfC anyhow, opposition was predicted despite not being too much opposition there.

In general guidelines shouldn't try to overrule established practice unless there's a really good consistency reason..I did write a long para on how I was eh on it, but I think the more I look at it the more I find it fine. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:52, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Here's a really good consistency reason: Wikipedia professes to be a serious encyclopedia. Serious encyclopedias strive to be consistent with respect to things like this. That is not changed by the fact that a majority of Wikipedia editors don't care about things like this. Those of us who do ask nothing of those who don't except to not stand in the way of our efforts toward consistency. Not standing in the way is really, really easy—so easy that one can do it while sleeping. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:11, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose he is a president of a country, and he is the President of the United States, that is his title and it should be capitalized, same as it is with every other former president. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose When we are using the official title, especially at first use, we have invariably capitalized it. This is not just about the president. See for example Jeff Sessions (“…is the 84th Attorney General of the United States”), Rex Tillerson (“…serving as the 69th and current United States Secretary of State”), Betsy Devos (“…is an American businesswoman, philanthropist, politician, and the United States Secretary of Education”), Jim Mattis (“…is a retired United States Marine Corps general who is the 26th and current United States Secretary of Defense”)… shall I go on? --MelanieN (talk) 18:40, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

P.S. Someone mentioned professors. Good example. “He is a professor of physics at Yale University”: job description, not capitalized. “He is the Frederick Phineas Rose Professor of Physics at Yale University”: official title, capitalized. --MelanieN (talk) 18:48, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - If even MelanieN opposes this, effectively saying that MoS means nothing in the end, it seems very unlikely to pass, and it is unbearably painful for me to watch. Therefore I've withdrawn it as a waste of time.
  Apparently, despite its name, there is considerable opinion that Wikipedia's MoS is not an actual manual of style as the rest of the world defines the phrase. I seriously doubt that editors at The New York Times, for example, refuse to comply with the parts of their MoS that they disagree with, as they are professionals who put their paper's style consistency before their own opinions. Until there is a clear community consensus to the contrary, I and many others will continue to assume the usual definition of MoS and will strive for that same level of professionalism. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:19, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mandruss Or maybe that MOS section doesn't really represent the community consensus on "best practice" and needs to change to a new consistent manner that doesn't conflict with thousands of pages. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:34, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

That MOS section is backed by a clear RfC consensus. If it needs to change, how would you suggest we go about effecting that change? RfC? Oh. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Just to be clear, I totally understand your frustration about this, particularly as it would seem to be a violation of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. With that said, I've looked at the RfC and I firmly believe the result was quite wrong - possibly a function of the fact it had so few participants (a perennial problem with such things). External manuals of style disagree on the matter (Chicago sides with you, but AP does not), and I think it will always be contentious. Based on the fact most articles use the uppercase form (and we're talking about hundreds and hundreds of articles), I think it is going to be a difficult hill for you to take. Perhaps another RfC is needed, but given the enormous scope it represents I think it would need to be publicized in a big way to get more editors to respond. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

@Scjessey: I think it is going to be a difficult hill for you to take - I don't intend to take this approach again, but as I said I and many others will continue to do what we can in a less direct manner. That is far from the best approach for the project, but that's not a problem we created. If the collective community felt that MoS should mean nothing, it wouldn't continue to exist. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:31, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Mandruss It looks the consensus isn't really that clear - people in the RfC were suggesting going to WP:VPP to get more people and wider consensus. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

@Galobtter: It was clear enough for the guideline to be revised without objection and to remain stable for 3 months. And any one of the people you speak of could have done exactly what they were suggesting, and did not; that's how strong their feelings were. It was an RfC, so it was listed on the pages watched by editors who wish to be involved in MoS RfCs. Editors can't choose not to participate and then cry "Insufficient participation!!" when the result doesn't go their way. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:49, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Consensus #21 (Mental Health)

I don't think this consensus reflects the discussion it links, and erects to high a barrier around posting. Should Trump experience an ongoing degradation of his mental facilities, we would not see public confirmation from a doctor with access. On the contrary; Doctor shopping would be used to find a favorable opinion whilst any confirmation would be stifled by doctor-patient confidentiality (see Reagan). I am not suggesting that we post now, but when documented actions by the president raise concerns of degradation in neutral reliable sources, we would be obligated to post. Note that I googled for this and currently found only left-slanted, speculative or report-on-a-report sources as yet. GCG (talk) 17:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

The only chance that could be included is if the doctor that examined him in person made statements explicitly to that effect. Even then I think it would be a rather tough sell. PackMecEng (talk) 17:27, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Wait until we have something real to discuss. Consensuses are easy enough to change when the need is clear, and we wouldn't be "obligated to post" "today". ―Mandruss ☎ 18:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Definitely wait. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:09, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

We are almost certainly not going to get anything reliably sourced that we can say about his mental health. What we can do is report his words and his actions, and let people draw their own conclusions. --MelanieN (talk) 01:12, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

What does "Consensus #21 (Mental Health)" mean? Is there a discussion somewhere numbered #21 or something? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:17, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

[1] O3000 (talk) 01:22, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@Objective3000: Ah, thanks.

Many Americans (and I assume non-Americans) are concerned about Trump's mental health; it's been covered countless times by dozens/hundreds of reliable sources over an extended period of time. It's a legitimate sub-topic worthy of inclusion in this article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:35, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Most Republicans sincerely think most Democrats are out of their fucking minds, and vice versa. Perhaps that reality might be factoring into the present conversation. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:39, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

This is a really hairy subject. I am glad this is under discussion in the press and even Congress. But IMO, armchair analyses of living persons don’t belong in an encyclopedia. In any case, you won’t gain consensus. O3000 (talk) 01:46, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I read this section yesterday and mentally put myself down as a definite No for changing the current consensus. Then I read this front page New York Times article this morning and started to question that. I'm currently leaning toward the opinion that it is possible to talk about the mental fitness debate without engaging in "armchair diagnosis" rightly eschewed by Consensus #21. I think it may be possible to craft a neutral sentence or two in the article's body acknowledging that the debate exists, perhaps including a summary of the White House's rebuttals if appropriate. Part of what pushed me to this position was the existence of the last two paragraphs of Barry Goldwater#U.S. presidential_campaign, 1964 that contain a summary of the events leading to the Goldwater rule (an article that incidentally talks as much about Donald Trump as Barry Goldwater). Anyway my gut tells me (and sources seem to agree) that there is something "unprecedented" going on today that is as big or bigger than the Goldwater thing. ~Awilley (talk) 17:13, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

On the other hand, the Goldwater thing was 53 years ago, he wasn't a sitting president, and he had been dead for 8 years when that content was first added. This is "unprecedented" in more ways than one. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:41, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Awilley. There is abundant RS and professional coverage of the subject to deserve short mention, even a short section (well, actually a separate article, there really is that much). -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:29, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@Mandruss, I agree that BLP is more of a concern here than with Goldwater, and we certainly should not give it the kind of treatment the Goldwater article currently does (quoting at length specific claims, etc.). The first sentence of the NYTimes article linked above covers most of what I think should be said at this point:

"President Trump, whose sometimes erratic behavior in office has generated an unprecedented debate about his mental health, declared on Saturday that he was perfectly sane and accused his critics of raising questions to score political points."

(Note this isn't a proposal for an actual wording.)

@BullRangifer, I think a short section would be overkill. ~Awilley (talk) 20:56, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

This BLP has a Section Donald_Trump#Health. It doesn’t include his sniffling during the presidential debates, and concomitant speculation that he has a drug habit. We can include mental health stuff in this section when the White House issues an actual medical report saying whether there’s a mental health issue. Until something like that happens, it’s premature in this article, IMHO. Trump is not a doctor. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:32, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, I have always argued against inclusion of anything related to armchair analyses. But, I think there is a point where some commentary might be warranted; and that point is well short of a medical report from the WH. O3000 (talk) 22:00, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Where else would a medical report about this come from? Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:05, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

From a doctor. We need to keep in mind whether the Goldwater rule is about ethics or reliability if something that violates is considered for inclusion. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:09, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Where would a doctor’s medical report about this come from, other than from the White House? If you mean from a doctor who’s never spoken with him and never tested him, I can only say that Trump would have to be extremely bonkers (and his White House doctors extremely negligent) for such a report to have any chance of being credible. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:13, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

You don’t need a medical report to mention concerns if those concerns are heavily documented in RS and originate from both sides of the aisle. As Awilley says, any addition would have to be neutral. I fear we wouldn’t see a medical report from the WH if he were swinging from the branches of the Jackson Magnolia. O3000 (talk) 22:17, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

There is no consensus regarding inclusion of material about Trump's psychology and personality, neither for or against. I can't really see any policy-based reasons not to include such material, as the reliable sources covering this material exist in enormous quantity and are of high quality in many, many cases, and as the issue is clearly of great importance (from current affairs, historical and encyclopedic perspectives) as it directly impacts how the United States is governed. We have entire articles devoted to the mental health of other politicians, and the US government has itself commissioned reports on the mental health of other contemporary politicians such as Putin, which have been reported on in US media.

The claim that those experts commenting on his mental health "must" have examined him personally is nonsensical and wrong, and fundamentally misunderstands Wikipedia's nature. A recommendation (from a private association) to examine someone personally may be relevant to an individual health care professional within a specific country and within a specific profession in that country and in the context of providing healthcare. Wikipedia however is based on the coverage in reliable sources, and such a recommendation has no bearing on whether we can include reliably sourced (and relevant/WP:DUE etc.) material about Trump's psychology here. Many very solid observations can and have been made by reputable experts based on publicly available material relating to Trump, just as entire books have been written about other politicians' psychology/personality/health by experts who never met them personally.

The issue of Trump's psychology/personality is much greater than the opinions of one private association in one country about what they believe members of their association should or shouldn't do. It's not like it's illegal, not even within the US, to comment on this issue either – it's discussed in US media on a daily basis. We also don't really need to cite any members of the psychiatric association in question, because there are plenty of competent experts in other professions (e.g. psychology) and based in other countries who have commented on the same issue, and for whom any Goldwater rule (which isn't really a "rule" but one association's opinion of dubious relevance to this case) in the US is utterly irrelevant. The conclusion must be that we should include such material in the article. --Tataral (talk) 22:41, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• What would be included, if that happens, is speculation (given the absence of an investigation whose results are made public) and while we usually wouldn't include speculation, in this case we're dealing with speculation reported on extensively by reliable sources--and the speculation that I know of isn't by some jackass off the street, but by someone with a medical degree who reported on her thoughts in an important forum. So no, this is not something that we can only talk about if some licensed therapists has a session with the president: it is not the White House that controls the narrative, but reliable sources and editorial consensus. PS Jackson has a magnolia? He truly is an important figure in the WH, isn't he. Drmies (talk) 22:47, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I am not suggesting that Wikipedia include nothing about Trump’s alleged mental derangement. However, it should go where stuff like this typically goes, and that’s there. I see nothing about Trump there now, and I’d like to see it developed there before we consider summarizing it here (actually, I guess a proper summary of nothing is nothing). Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:55, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Drmies, I’ve started a discussion at Talk:Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:40, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I don’t think that’s the proper venue as it presupposes that the 25th is a remedy or that any remedy is required. O3000 (talk) 23:52, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Yesterday’s NYT Article was not idle chit-chat; it mentioned the 25th Amendment multiple times. If Trump is swinging around in the Jackson Magnolia unbeknownst to the Physician to the President and the White House Medical Unit, that doesn’t stop Congress from invoking the 25th. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

OK--but the possible applicability of the 25th doesn't preclude the matter from being discussed and possible included here, of course (I know I'm not telling you anything new). BTW I have very limited interest in the subject matter, but happened to see Tataral's edit go by (they have a cool username, which reminds me of a weird band I like)--still I appreciate the ping. Gotta go--AFV just started! Drmies (talk) 00:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Observe Alfonso Ribeiro carefully for mental stability issues! Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I have been consistently opposed to including anything about mental health in this article because it would be basically speculation. However, I think a very general sentence similar to the NYT one that Awilley quoted above might be OK in the "health" section. BTW the "Goldwater rule" is intended as an ethical guideline for doctors, not for the general public. It may limit what doctors can say; it does not limit what we can say. --MelanieN (talk) 00:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

• [2].Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:24, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Good link. Can Wikipedia wait? Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:29, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I think we can wait a bit.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, we can wait, but not much longer. We have long since passed critical mass on this subject. There's enough very RS stuff to make a nice little article. Suppression is an NPOV violation that can only exist so long without damaging the project. Therefore, short mention here is needed, so start thinking in that direction. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:24, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Do you feel like suppression is stopping you from including it now at Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution? Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:30, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that article is an appropriate place for speculation about his mental health. It could be used to describe attempts (if genuine and coming from people who are actually in a position to do it) to invoke the amendment. --MelanieN (talk) 01:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree that it should only be mentioned there as it relates to the subject of the 25th. In that regard, there are plenty of RS which do discuss it in that context, so it should be possible to include something there, at least a section, since incapacity (mental health issues qualify) is a significant condition for invoking the 25th.

BTW, "speculation" is an irrelevant concept at Wikipedia, including BLPs, if it's well-sourced. I really do get tired of that argument, because it's not based on policy. We are literally required to document everything (with a small caveat). Speculation, rumor, conspiracy, and nonsense are all unfortunate parts of the sum total of human knowledge. If it gets covered in RS, it's potential fair game. It's no guarantee, but that gets it on the target for possible inclusion. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Let's hope we don't see a repeat of his other medical report(s).[3][4][5][6] Of course Trump wouldn't allow any report that's negative, and the doctor wouldn't dare cross him. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:57, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

What if the doctor’s not just unethical, but also deranged??? Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:32, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Which is exactly why we should not report diagnoses from armchair doctors; but instead talk to concerns voiced widely in RS. When and if the time is right. O3000 (talk) 01:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

The concerns voiced widely at the moment are by armchair doctors. PackMecEng (talk) 01:45, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

You have a good point. But, many of the concerns are voiced by those with expertise in history, politics, and government, and about the dangers presented. Should they be ignored? O3000 (talk) 01:49, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

If they have no hands of experience examining the subject, yes they should be ignored. Otherwise it is just vague, mostly partisan, opining and guessing. I am not sure of a neutral and BLP compliant way to add such speculation. PackMecEng (talk) 02:02, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Again, I am adamantly opposed to medical diagnoses from armchair doctors. I am only talking about brief mention of concerns that appear in growing numbers of RS originating from both sides of the aisle. This can be stated neutrally. O3000 (talk) 02:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I would be happy to try and work out a sentence here for the health section, I still have my previous concerns though. PackMecEng (talk) 02:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I can't believe those of you editors in favor of this proposal who chastised me for violations of BLP policy would ever consider commenting on Trump's mental health. You are going to need a determination from a medical examining board, who has access to his medical records, to make any such comments.Phmoreno (talk) 01:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Ph, this is the same misunderstanding of WP policy that's gotten you a lot of criticism on other topics here. As editors, we don't adjudicate such issues like a jury that hears expert witnesses. We reflect the narratives of Reliable Source references. There's now widespread mainstream discussion of POTUS' cognitive and emotional well-being. SPECIFICO talk 02:21, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Medical facts, not opinions, for mental health comments. Don't confuse mental health with personality traits.Phmoreno (talk) 02:35, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

We base our content on RS, right or wrong, not medical authorities or courts. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

"We base our content on RS, right or wrong, not medical authorities or courts." You're legitimately mad if you actually believe this, according to you a completely inaccurate and false story from an outlet like CNN outweighs a factual report by medical professionals and actual courts of law. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 21:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

No, we would likely document them all. See my comment above. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:33, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

• This discussion is based on farcical premises. First, the word "speculation" appears 11 times above. Second, we are told that this matter is so important WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS that factual confirmation is not necessary, so long as it is being mentioned by non-experts in "reliable sources".

Further, these claims are nonspecific, non-medical, hypothetical crystal balling coming from Trump's opponents, whether of the left or the nevertrumper sort.

Finally, the proposed materialon derangement and unfitness for office actually has its own special term in defamation law; defamation per se (which states):

Most states recognize that some categories of statements are considered to be defamatory per se, such that people making a defamation claim for these statements do not need to prove that the statement was defamatory.

In an action for defamation per se, the law recognizes that certain false statements are so damaging that they create a presumption of injury to the plaintiff's reputation, allowing a defamation case to proceed to verdict with no actual proof of damages. Although laws vary by state, and not all states recognize defamation per se, there are four general categories of false statement that typically support a per se action:

1. accusing someone of a crime;
2. alleging that someone has a foul or loathsome disease;
3. adversely reflecting on a person's fitness to conduct their business or trade; and
4. imputing serious sexual misconduct.

Obviously there is no more need or justification for repeating this stuff in an encyclopedia article just because rumor and wishful thinking on the topic is widespread. If and when a verifiable fact occurs like a legal action or a medical emergency, we can report that. Until then, we have no business reporting rumors simply because they are repeated in media echo chambers. μηδείς (talk) 05:22, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

You've been here since 2010 and you're making legal threats? You seriously don't understand how this works, do you. We cite RS. Under US laws, even if what we wrote were libelous, and citing a source making a libelous claim does not make us guilty of libel, we are protected by Barrett v. Rosenthal, which protects those who repeat claims found on the internet, even if they are libelous, but it never gets that far here.

Instead we're dealing with opinions and statements covered by the First Amendment in RS, and we can freely cite them without any risk of breaking any law. Even if Trump were to try and sue Wikipedia, or editors personally, his SLAPP suits are nothing to be feared. If we followed your opinions above, editing here would ground to a halt on many articles.

Likewise in society at large. The numerous articles and commentary on this subject are made by often well-known top professionals in medicine, psychiatry, journalism, politics, etc. None of them are trying to protect themselves from defamation lawsuits when they make these statements, because they are not breaking the law. The First Amendment covers them, and, because Trump is a public person, it would be nearly impossible for him to win a defamation case.

Study that subject. Public persons, and especially a sitting president, are totally powerless in the face of defamation. Those who are wise and truly great totally ignore such things. Trump, OTOH, is thin-skinned and takes slights personally. Not wise.

Now drop the LEGAL THREATS and stop trying to intimidate editors. It creates a chilling atmosphere. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh c'mon. There's no legal threat here. He's just saying it could be defamatory or something like that. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

You've been here since 2005 and you still haven't read the part of WP:LEGAL where it says A discussion as to whether material is libelous is not a legal threat. Wikipedia's policy on defamation is to delete libelous material as soon as it is identified? You seriously don't understand how this works, do you. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:53, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I was actually thinking about mentioning the same thing about defamation, because making unfounded non-medical assessments that someone is diseased is treated severely by the law. It’s not a legal threat, just a fact about how the law treats such gossip. And WP:BLP similarly states, “Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject.“ The only part of this story that qualifies so far is the bit about the 25th Amendment, and even that’s premature. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:59, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I understand it, but the only reason for bringing it up served to intimidate editors. It was uncalled for. There has been no danger of violating policy. We're talking about allegations, claims, opinions, etc. found in RS, not uncited opinions. This is all covered by the First Amendment and policy here. When creating BLP content we are very careful how we do it. Why bring up defamation? -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Because defamation is an exception to the First Amendment, and it’s one thing for the press to print gossip but quite another for people who are not journalists to repeat it. Moreover, it’s important to understand the seriousness of saying without proof that a person is diseased or may be diseased. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:09, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's a serious matter, but as explained above, we are covered by BvR, 1st Amendment, and by how we treat BLP-related content. We cite it. We don't state it in Wikipedia's voice. We also attribute it. If the subject were to sue, they would have to sue the person who wrote the original article. We cannot be held liable. A public person would likely not sue because it's nearly impossible to win a defamation case in the USA. In England it's a different matter.

All this is assuming it's defamatory material, but it's not, and the authors are not at all concerned. Why are we making a big deal when they are not? -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:18, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

We don’t print everything that the NYT thinks is fit to print, not even 1%. We ought to wait until a doctor who examines the BLP subject has something to say about it, and that will be very soon according to VM’s link above Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:27, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

...the authors are not at all concerned. Why are we making a big deal when they are not? You might as well say we should be able to use any image we see on a website, particularly if it's seen on multiple sites. If the copyright holder isn't suing any of those sites, why would they sue us? Why should we apply a much higher standard than the rest of the world? For better or worse, Wikipedia doesn't use reasoning like that. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:20, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

full protection

Uh, WHY exactly was this article FULLY protected? And for how long? Is this another way way way overreaction by User:Coffee? Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:10, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

6 hours is the duration, a quick review of the very recent page history can explain why it happened. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 08:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok, 6 hours is reasonable I guess. Recent page history doesn't quite justify it though, but whatever. Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:15, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I figured with the low edit count that it would be a short enough duration to simply allow Anthony22 and TheValeyard to take time to review the restrictions on having content disputes in the article instead of the talk page again. I'm literally trying to not overreact. I would honestly appreciate if you AGF'd just a touch more when it comes to my administration on this site. This isn't exactly as easy as patrolling AIV or whatnot for any administrator, let alone one trying to enforce Arbitration rulings. And I'm always, always willing to take outside opinions. But, yelling at me from the start doesn't help me see your perspective as easily as if you saw me as a fellow human trying to help out where they can. I'm not perfect, and I don't expect anyone to be. But hell, I'm trying to improve daily VM. At least give me a chance to instead of thinking I'm "stuck in my ways" or some such. Life is fluid... like my favorite beverage. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 08:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Alright. Sorry, I thought the protection was for longer (and it was hard to tell from the es). Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Apologies for that too, I only realized after using up all the edit summary space that the duration was kind of lost in the page history itself. Always feel free to call me out if you think I'm using too hard of a hammer though. Otherwise, I can't improve like I hope to. I took every concern listed at the last ANI to heart, and I truly thought about every single way I could work to make content creation even smoother upon my return. I don't blame you for your reaction though, I can imagine it might have looked heavy handed without the 6 hour disclaimer. I truly appreciate your understanding here. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 08:46, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I doubt that they won't see the protection, but just in case @Anthony22: @TheValeyard: please see my above comment and the protection log of the article. Please try and handle all disputes on the talk page, no matter how tiny they may seem. Even the smallest issues can cause tempers to flare around this topic area like a wildfire. Let's avoid having to bring Arbitration Enforcement into anything if we can. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 08:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Seems kind of heavy-handed just for a tit-for-tat over wording, if I may say. ValarianB (talk) 12:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

When the page restrictions specifically warn against doing that I'm not sure I agree. Perhaps if I had issued blocks I could see your point here, but pointing out the severity of the restrictions was the goal here. The protection expires within the hour at any rate. I hope the editors have thoroughly considered their actions, or I will have to bring AE into this. This action was a deliberate non-AE action, so as to not add their names to the log just yet. That is why I say I think this wasn't heavy-handed: technically any administrator could have levied a severe warning with a log entry, or even a block/topic-ban with the same for ArbCom DS violations. I chose to lay down such options here, in favor of a more broad reminder. If you would like me to make a change to the article however, I'm more than willing to do that @ValarianB: just let me know what it is. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 13:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@Coffee: I am glad that you are trying not to be heavy handed, but this was poorly handled in my opinion. You just gave someone their first block, someone who has been here since 2006 and has 26,000 edits, and the offending edit was overzealously fixing a typo. On top of that, you didn't even have the courtesy to warn the user on their talk page. The only warning was a ping here, given likely after the user was fast asleep in bed. That note was good, but would have gotten you a lot more mileage on the talk pages of the individual users. Your actions here have caused more disruption than the little spat between two users over minor copyedits and typos. Heck, as someone who's been watching this page for a while it's refreshing to see people working on that kind of stuff rather than engaging in the normal partisan bickering. Anyway I apologize if I'm coming off hotheaded here. I don't know Anthony22 and I'm not involved in any way, but I have a real soft spot for wikignomes and I get angry when I see them get blocked without warning for daring to gnome around articles where other editors happen to be fighting. ~Awilley (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Let me be clear, I'm not saying you can't block people for violating the rules... I am saying that you should give people clear warnings on their talk pages before blocking, and you should give them enough time to comply with those warnings. That will reduce the blowback you get as an admin (ANI threads, etc.) and it will be more effective at changing people's behavior than surprise blocks. ~Awilley (talk) 17:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I have criticized coffee for being heavy-handed; however in this case the block was perfectly fine as warning was given after already violating the restriction (and he still should receive pings, not sure what sleep has to do with it). Leaving a talk message would've been more sensible though. This probably should be hatted as offtopic though.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Awilley, warnings are needed for editors who reasonably could plead ignorance of the expectations. That was not the case here. The objective is not to stop disruption but to prevent it, and unjustified blowback should not be a reason not to do so. I'm sorry but your approach ensures that many editors will be disruptive until they receive a warning from an admin. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Hmm. In principle, on any other article, protection after two editors revert each other twice (depending on how you count, whatever) is probably overblown, but here I can't find fault with it. I see that (correct me if I'm wrong) Anthony22 reverted again right after protection ran out and got blocked for it, so in hindsight protection seems to have been warranted because it staved off disruption for six hours--it's all water under the bridge now anyway. Marek, I love you like a brother and I assume that your "way way overreaction" was partly due to the thought that this was longterm protection? But it behooves us all to take it easy, and to not respond to a perceived overreaction with another one. I saw that Shaun King rightly called out someone who said "oh Russia is the real shithole country", saying "We don’t return one form of bigotry and xenophobia with another", which is good advice for all of us--me too. Thank you all, Drmies (talk) 16:56, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I thought it was for longer (I haven't seen many instances of full 6 hour protection - that actually might be a useful approach in the future, though I'd have to think about it). I don't have a problem with 6 hour protection.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Both are experienced editors. Both either knew of the remedies or should have known. Most of us take them seriously and expect other experienced editors to take them seriously. I would have blocked both if the decision were mine to make, for two reasons: (1) It would have allowed editing by others to continue, and (2) the only predictable line is a bright line. That's one of the reasons you'll never see me as the subject of an RfA.
This is not a criticism of Coffee, as I support admin discretion or de-sysop as alternatives to perpetual armchair second-guessing of admins by editors who won't become admins and submit themselves to the same.
VM, the duration was truncated in the editsum here but was evident in the following edit. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I mean blocking then would have (and has for Coffee) invited criticism of being too harsh. So you really can't win; personally prefer less harsh than more at-least for a first incident since anyone really disruptive will rack up enough incidents anyhow; anyone not won't and wouldn't need the block. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

This isn't really the right place for this conversation. Please wrap it up ASAP and close it. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I like Coffee's approach of short immediate Admin enforcement, and I think it's far preferable to the dysfunctional AE. I will continue on Coffee's talk later today or tomorrow. SPECIFICO talk 18:03, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't get back to replying early, Coffee. It's just that there was 4 hours between the last edit and the protection, so it seems whatever it was had long died down, it just seems like there was nothing to prevent at that point. I see one was blocked though, and in looking at this Anthony22's edits, there's a LOT of reversions of their edits, and he has never ever responded to feedback on his talk page. Maybe a block was warranted there just to get their attention, finally. ValarianB (talk) 18:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

A few thoughts before we move on: First of all, there’s no question that the edit warring was disruptive. This is a controversial and heavily watched article, and 1RR is in place for a reason. Both parties are experienced editors and should have known better. Second, IMO full-protecting the article was the most gentle, the least drastic way of dealing with the problem. (I was taught by my mentor, User:Dennis Brown, that protecting an article is often a better first approach to deal with edit warring, rather than immediately issuing blocks.) Third, User:Anthony22 richly deserved a block for immediately resuming the edit war (complete with SHOUTING in the edit summary) when the protection expired. Finally, it appears neither of the warriors learned anything, because there is still no attempt to discuss their differences on the talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Finally, it appears neither of the warriors learned anything... Hate to play the "some of us have real jobs" card, but I'm going to. I'm a GTA at present, and really only have time for this in the evenings, and even that is beginning to look like lost time. I went to bed right after that, and didn't really think it to be a big deal but apparently it was. So, apologies for the edit-warring but I was frustrated by that guys just plain bad editing which I've encountered on numerous articles. Linking to common words, linking within direct quotes, and needless verbosity. TheValeyard (talk) 22:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

• Had to poke around since it was brought to my attention. I personally like using protection in cases like this. 6 hours was pretty mild and I've done similar more than once. Often it is more effective in preventing blocks, but not always. Looks like it was a simple, creative solution, so I can't really find fault with it. Too bad it didn't work out for the one editor, but at some point, personal responsibility kicks in. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

"third-generation businessman"

So with this edit by Vjmlhds, IMO fluff has been inserted, miss universe thing isn't important enough in the lead. More opinions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galobtter (talk • contribs) 05:59, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I also liked the former version better... I don't think naming Art of the Deal and Miss Universe are needed, and the split makes it so there are now 7 paragraph in the Lead. ~Awilley (talk) 06:07, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

North Korea

This edit by Vjmlhds restores challenged material about the recent developments in North Korea. Aside from the fact Vjmlhds has clearly violated active discretionary sanctions by restoring material instead of discussing the matter on this talk page, I do not believe the quoted source draws a direct line between Trump's North Korea rhetoric and that country's involvement in the Olympics. At the most, it is saying South Korean president is crediting the existence of talks to Trump's rhetoric (which does not make it a fact). The text makes it seem as if Trump was directly responsible for North Korea being in the Olympics, which is a ludicrous assertion. My view is that we can say Moon Jae-in praised Trump and credited his rhetoric with facilitating talks, and that's really it. The New York Times presents an entirely different spin on the matter, suggesting Moon was tactically sucking up to Trump. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:04, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

The source has:

South Korea's President Moon Jae-in says his US counterpart, Donald Trump, "deserves big credit" for talks between South and North Korea.

The talks, held on Tuesday, were the first in two years and led to the announcement that North Korea would send a delegation to the Olympics in Pyeongchang later this year.

The restored (somewhat modified) version is:

In January 2018, South Korean president Moon Jae-in praised Trump's tough stance toward the North, stating that Trump deserved "big" credit for his efforts in facilitating talks between North and South Korea.

The talks resulted in an easing of tensions between the two Koreas, and the North participating in the Pyeongchang, South Korea hosted 2018 Winter Olympics.

putting sentences in different lines like the BBC to show the similarities

So while I'm not sure it's important enough to be included, it is pretty much a paraphrasing of the cited source and does not say that Trump caused North korea to go to the olympics. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:19, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Reverted per ArbCom restrictions. The difference between the two edits is one of copy editing, not substance. Vjmlhds is invited to join the discussion that s/he should have started. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:26, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@Galobtter: The proposed language still implies Trump is the reason North Korea is going to the Olympics. The BBC article makes this same implication, but by looking at other sources (such as the NYT source) it is clear that it is not what a preponderance of reliable sources say. We CAN say that it is Moon's opinion that Trump's rhetoric helped to bring about talks (though that is highly dubious, since most sources say it was a strategy by North Korea to drive a wedge between South Korea and the United States). What happened after that is NOT directly linked to Trump, and not RELEVANT to Trump, so it should not be in the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:48, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 January 2018

First line, last sentence.

"Before entering politics, he was a businessman and television personality."

How the sentence is currently worded deceives the audience, even if it is technically still truthful. I clarified the statement based on general accepted knowledge that - though might intuitive to people who were adults during his career - a lot of younger first time readers might now know, who also accepts Wikipedia as an encyclopedia.

"Before entering politics, he was primarily a businessman and then a popular television personality." Seetler (talk) 07:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done The intro sentence has been debated repeatedly, and we have firm consensus for the current short wording. See Talk:Donald Trump/Current consensus, item #17, which links to all prior discussions solidifying this description. To your main point, it seems far-fetched to assert that describing Trump as a businessman and TV personality "deceives the audience". People unfamiliar with Trump's life can simply read the article further to understand the relative weight of his business, media and political careers. — JFG ^talk 08:06, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Why is there no section for Trump's mental health?

Well? AHC300 (talk) 00:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Check the discussion above [7] and [8] item #21. PackMecEng (talk) 00:38, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Adding criticized as racist to lead

My proposal is to add Many of his comments have been criticized as racist. after His election and policies have sparked numerous protests. The section on this has been added, and IMO this is the bare minimum to represent the wide criticism of bigotry he has received for comments, and of wide ranging and numerous incidents of comments perceived as racist as described in Donald Trump racial views (which honestly could be trebled in size). Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:27, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

The lede summarizes the article. So yeah.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:34, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd just as soon let things settle down a bit first. Not everything in the article needs to be in the Lede, and the racism stuffarticle is brand new. ~Awilley (talk) 05:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Brand new? The criticism of racism stretches back 40 years, being especially numerous for the past 2 years. The section is new, but it really should've been there months ago. The section is reasonable, and that shouldn't matter anyhow when determining what to include per DUE and NPOV. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the section is growing and should be mentioned in the lead. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

A mention of this is long overdue. zzz (talk) 06:12, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Of course it should be mentioned in the lead and it's not something new that needs to settle down. It something that has a 45 year history that began when Trump was sued (and he settled) for housing discrimination.[9][10][11][12][13]- MrX 12:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Parts on accusations of "pandering to white nationalists" have been there too, for months. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:17, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Trump denies being racist, and has been accused of being racist. Do reliable sources say he IS racist? And listing accusations by political opponents and rivals in a BLP is a lot less notable than listing accusations by allies. Has Trump praised MLK and the Civil Rights movement? Has he touted the decreasing unemployment rate among minorities? If so, we need to include stuff like that for NPOV. He has often said that he wants immigration of skilled and highly-educated people, so what’s the evidence that those are code-words for “white”? You know, calling someone a “racist” is the worst kind of insult and (if it’s false) just as derogatory as anything Trump has been accused of saying. So we need to be careful. Okay? Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Which is why it is "criticized as being racist". Absolutely nowhere in the statement does it say he is racist. Paul Ryan has called one of his statements racist. We don't need to include those stuff about praising MLK because they are not prominent in reliable sources per DUE. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:27, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

When I asked whether reliable sources say he IS racist, I wasn’t implying that we are saying so, but rather that we should say whether reliable sources are saying so. As for how Trump and the White House defend themselves against these allegations, I think BLP almost always requires inclusion of info about denials even if reliable sources chose mostly to omit that stuff. Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Can add a "which he denied" if needed..RS sources are using "racially charged". But the fact is true that "many of his comments have been criticized as racist" Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

There is no need to add "which he denied". Sometimes he denies it; other times, like yesterday, he doesn't deny it.[14] - MrX 12:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Rather than that, it's unecesary because a denial is unimportant and meaningless; if he didn't deny that'd be meaningful (in that case merely ignored the question) Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:55, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, I tried adding it with a summary saying that it is the world-wide top news story to see what would happen and it was deleted as WP:NOTNEWS. Gandydancer (talk) 19:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Unproven allegations are fine for the article body, but usually not the lead. If most RS's don't say he "IS" racist, then it's an unproven allegation. Still it's a serious allegation, and belongs in this BLP, just not in the lead, yet. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:17, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

That's arbitrary and even incorrect. It's not an allegation; it's a 45 year history of well-documented observations and analysis that Trump's holds racist views. Of course it belongs in the lead in some form. There are few things that have been more prominently covered in sources about this subject. Also, there is no standard on Wikipedia, or Earth, that requires someone to be "proven' to be a racist in order to have their views described as racist.. There is also no Wikipedia policy or guideline for keeping properly sourced, widely-reported material out of the lead because its "unproven".- MrX 21:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Any..., where did I put in the lead that Trump was racist? I did not. I mentioned world-wide condemnation, which I would change to "attention" or some similar word. Gandydancer (talk) 21:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say that you did. What I said is that until we can say in the lead based on reliable sources that he's a racist (which would be extremely notable), his alleged or actual views on race are not notable enough for the lead. They belong in the article body only. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Racial views

In light of Trump's recent comments that are being described as racist, unforgivable, vulgur, ugly, etc. it occurs to me that we need to have a serious discussion about how this article covers Trump's long history of unfortunate statements, comments, tweets, and actions that have been widely-characterized as racist, racially motivated, and racially insensitive. I propose a dedicated section that would include an overall analysis, and then lay out the evolution of Trump's words/actions and their impact. It would probably best fit under the 'Political image' section. It should look at everything from 1989 forward, with emphasis on the past two and a half years. The trick of course will be to keep it to a reasonable length. Please share your thoughts.- MrX 00:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Previous discussions:

• Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 22#Accusations of racism
• Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 19#Trump's alleged racism

Trump’s racism isn’t incidental to his political appeal. It’s the core of it. zzz (talk) 01:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

It's time already for another Trump is racist talk? Just does not seem like a good idea. PackMecEng (talk) 01:23, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

The previous discussions are from August 2016. zzz (talk) 01:38, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

This is not a "talk" about whether Trump is a racist or not; it's a proposal to organize and improve the content about what I believe is a defining aspect of the subject. It is a theme that comes up frequently in the press, and it has roots in the 1980s, perhaps earlier. If you have a valid objection about having such a discussion, I would like to hear it, but if your only contribution is to flippantly dismiss it, then that's not helpful at all.- MrX 01:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah it is kind of a "talk" about if Trump is racist or not, if you are proposing a dedicated section to all the perceived racist things he has said or done. We should at least be honest on what you are purposing if you wish to have a meaningful discussion on the topic. PackMecEng (talk) 01:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Right, this must not be talked about. "But all our articles have a liberal bias!!!!!" (sarcasm).Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:49, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Ha, yeah not what I mean. But thank you! PackMecEng (talk) 01:54, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more strongly with MrX's suggestion. Thanks for bringing up the suggestion. This is a good article from CNN for anyone that needs a reminder. [[15]] Gandydancer (talk) 01:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. There are obviously a lot of sources to work with, including a number that analyze it on a longer-term scale.- MrX 01:58, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

PackMecEng, you don't need to clarify, amplify, or interpret what I wrote in the OP. It was perfectly clear. If you don't want to participate, fine, but please don't disrupt.- MrX 01:58, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

It is a valid point, but if you disagree that is fine. PackMecEng (talk) 02:40, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I think someone should just add the material. Then we can discuss it. Otherwise some editors are gonna play endless games to prevent *anything* from being said on the topic.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:57, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree and let's not get hung up on the label "racist", which will lead to endless unproductive discussion. But his views and their evolution and persistence are one of the defining characteristics of his public life. Somebody should add the content and we can work to improve it if necessary. SPECIFICO talk 02:03, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Will Rogers said: "There's no trick to being a humorist when you have the whole government working for you." I agree with MrX, (and zzz’s addition) including the suggestion that it be of reasonable length. And that’s the rub. At some point we need to talk elephants crowding the room. I don’t know when. But, at some point, "when" becomes "now". O3000 (talk) 02:05, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Maybe a good place to start is to locate a few high quality sources that cover the subject from at a macro level. As a first draft thumbnail sketch of an outline, I propose:

1. Within its first year, Trump's presidency often found itself fending off accusations of racial insensitivity, tacit support of white supremacists, and racism. Analysts tied this to Trump's history...
2. Trumps history from the Central Park 5 to birtherism; from Mexico sending rapists to present.
3. Reaction and impact.

- MrX 02:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

For 2, also his housing discrimination cases [16].Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:28, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, good point.- MrX 02:31, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

CP5 is important. His initial reaction and his reaction 17 years later. His housing consent decrees long past may be too much. Anything with strong sourcing since the start of his campaign is fair game. I wouldn’t press heavily on his inept comments re Charlottesville. O3000 (talk) 02:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Let me expand on the Central Park thingy. He didn’t do that for votes. He didn’t do that for condo sales. He spent a pile of money to press for the death of folks with no conviction. When they were exonerated, he refused to accept it. He asked what were black teens doing in CP if not to cause trouble. As if a black teen wouldn’t go to a park if not to rape. O3000 (talk) 02:38, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

You should probably use a better source than a NPR commentary. PackMecEng (talk) 02:41, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

It's in the public record. O3000 (talk) 02:43, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I was referring to the NPR source listed above by VM. A non-commentary source would be better. PackMecEng (talk) 02:45, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm thinking of the racist remarks re Puerto Rico. [[17]] Gandydancer (talk) 03:00, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Common dreams is a nonprofit progressive site, there has to be better sources. PackMecEng (talk) 03:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Of course there are better article sources for an article. For our talk page the one I gave is excellent. Gandydancer (talk) 04:56, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Then you should cite those, not ones that would not be suitable for the proposed section. PackMecEng (talk) 16:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Trump pardoned racial profiler Arpaio (now planning to run for senate as "a big supporter of President Trump")[18]. (Arpaio a 'priest' in the 'death-cult' of Trumpism [19].) Tweeted that majority of killings of whites are by blacks, and continually ties blacks with inner-city violence [20]. Retweeted fake Muslim immigrant videos from UK neo-Nazis [21]. zzz (talk) 04:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Really? Arpaio as a priest in the death cult of Trump? wow PackMecEng (talk) 03:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposal

• What about creating an article on MrX's proposal? I have a feeling there will be enough for a standalone article. It could be summarized in this article and linked to the main article. Just an idea. Also, ignore this section if there isn't any agreement on this idea. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 02:57, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I like that idea, especially considering that he is only in his first year... Gandydancer (talk) 03:06, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I have begun an article in one of my sandbox pages if people want to work on it. I made a couple of opening statements with references. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Oops! here is the link: [22]. The proposed title is at the top of the page, and this of course can be changed per consensus. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:38, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support A stand alone article with a brief summary and link in this article is a very good idea. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:41, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
• I agree that a new article is probably warranted. Perhaps it could be called Donald Trump racial provocations [23] or Donald Trump racial views . Whatever summary is left here should not be so short as to misrepresent the extent to which the subject has been covered in reliable sources. Certainly it should be no shorter that the 'Manhattan developments' section in which we go into mind-numbing detail about routine real estate deals. - MrX 03:58, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Everybody feel free to make additions and changes to the article as we go along. --Steve Quinn (talk) 04:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm thinking of moving it to the main space. I will cite consensus support here. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:25, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support. Whether Trump is or is not a racist is relatively irrelevant here. What we focus on is documenting what RS say on the issue, and there are plenty of RS which do that. There should be enough for a stand alone article which ends up getting a section here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:29, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I find it interesting that we don't even well represent his statements/actions (travel ban etc) characterized as islamophobic. You won't find "muslim ban" here either in the campaign section or in the immigration section. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:40, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree. This is interesting. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:28, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I moved the page to an inactive Draft space based on a recommendation. Here it is [24] and I updated the above link. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:28, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Definitely the widely covered stuff about islamophobia, birther stuff, and charlottesville etc Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:13, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Please also make sure to inclide his close personal and business relationships with people of various ethnicities including endorsements he received and that he got a higher percentage of votes from Blacks and hispanocs than the prior Republican candidate. Yoi should also note his making MLK's birthplace the first national historic monument in Georgia. The personal views he has expressed should also be included spelling out his condemnation of hate and hate groups. FloridaArmy (talk) 07:55, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, if that's is covered in relation to his views; if not it should be included like anything else per due weight. Also if including condemnations should include how, say, his condmenation of charlotesville was from "overwhelming pressure" and "seen as long overdue" Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

The Guardian is almost as biased as the other sources and commentaries noted here. I'm pretty sure his condemmation of hate groups and violence has been widely reported as have his action making MLK's birthplace the first National Monument in Georgia, and his elextion results. What we shouldn't be doing is making essays and stringing together sources to try and make a point. I'm sure there are sources noting his penchant for tweets and comments that have stirred controversy. Without going overboard on recentism it's worth noting his communocation style and the protests responding. FloridaArmy (talk) 08:31, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:BIASED. I mean no, the "shithole" comment just by itself has been covered about 5-100 times more than that MLK thing, including internationally. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:40, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

That's correct. FloridaArmy, we don't add material to articles just to balance unpleasant material. Articles should proportionately reflect the coverage in reliable sources. This is explained in WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:DUEWEIGHT.- MrX 13:54, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Uh, you ever heard about the "some of my best friends are black" argument? Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:24, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

VM, Do you have a source that he is making that argument? I do not think it would be wise to source it to you for the article. PackMecEng (talk) 13:31, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Dawha? The source for "making that argument" is the comment posted by user FloridaArmy at 7:55 on January 12.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Ah, maybe stick to content not contributors. PackMecEng (talk) 17:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I am addressing a specific argument he made. So yeah, I'm sticking to content. Just because I am referring to a comment made by a contributor does not mean I'm discussing contributors. Otherwise, every single comment on here would be "discussing contributors". Which would be ridiculous. See how that works? Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

That would indeed be ridiculous, if that was what happened. Which of course it is not, hyperbolic statements aside. That is why I was asking for a source before to back up your statement, the "some of my best friends are black" argument is a pretty tired one not used by Trump and rarely used by RS. So from a content point of view not applicable. See what I mean? PackMecEng (talk) 14:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Adding to that - FloridaArmy should see this journal paper - having black friends doesn't necessarily mean a change in racial attitude. But getting a little more on-topic, a sentence on his essential defense of "Look at my African American over here!" could be included; but so for the lambasting of it. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree that we need a dedicated section. This is a major topic of his political worldview; it is both one of the issues he and his supporters seem to focus the most on, and also one of the topics that receives the most coverage in reliable sources. --Tataral (talk) 11:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Tataral (and others), there is a draft started here. I suggest we bring it to 'Start' or 'C' class then move it to main space. There is a lot of material in existing articles to draw from. In about an hour, when I should be fully awake, I'm going to flesh out an outline in the form of section headings and then start filling in each section to a minimal degree.- MrX 14:05, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments now condemned as racist by UN. Remarks by Donald Trump describing immigrants from Africa and Haiti as coming from “shithole countries” were racist, the United Nations human rights office has said, as it led global condemnation of the US president. Revise to 1000 times more coverage than the MLK whatever. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

It's really irrelevant what the UN says. Saying a country is a shithole country doesn't make one racist. Many of those countries are shithole countries, and it has nothing to do with race. Putting this into the article would be a massive BLP and UNDUE and POV issue. And of course we would need impeccable sourcing that he actually said it, which he denies. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:34, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

"Putting this into the article would be a massive BLP and UNDUE and POV issue." <-- No, this is completely ass backwards and illustrates well the POV problem that exists on so many Trump related articles. Anything that might Trump looks bad, EVEN IF he himself is responsible for it, is whitewashed out of them with WP:CRYBLP. No, keeping this out would be a POV issue. "And of course we would need impeccable sourcing that he actually said it, which he denies." <-- Impeccable sourcing is not a problem since every single outlet has commented on it. And yeah, he denies it NOW (though yesterday the statement WH released didn't deny it) that shit hit the fan and he's catching crap for it even from some Republicans. But so what? His denial is completely irrelevant to the issue other than that we should note it in the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

That's exactly right. Editors can't just throw up alphabet soup and expect to be taken seriously. As some point, WP:CIR has to come into play.- MrX 16:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree, and closers are far too lax about enforcing policy due the shitstorm that the community tolerates when they do, and that is a serious problem. I've said it a million times, mostly to deaf ears, but we should be seeing more closes go against the numbers. Without exception, when I've asked for examples of that, that's ended the conversation. And, even if that situation were improved, we would need a closer for every discussion of any importance, as there would be no other way to enforce policy. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I think not many closers brave enough to say go against the numbers because the arguments don't conform to policy. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Explain to me then how it's not a BLP issue or POV issue to include this? Right now we have conflicting statements on what was actually said and there is no real RS on what was said, only allegations or "he said she said" and to call someone or a comment racist needs impeccable sourcing. In addition, even if he did call certain countries shitholes, that doesn't make it racist at all. Was Obama called an antisemite for calling Netanyahu "chickenshit?" Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:25, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

That's not how it works. We don't have to disprove your spurious assertion. We are talking about a section on Trump's 45 year history of racial comments and actions (which include executive orders, lawsuits, statements, comments, and tweets). If yesterday didn't happen, the section would still need to be included in this article per WP:DUEWEIGHT because of the 1000s of reliable sources that have documented it for 45 years.- MrX 17:40, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually, referring to Africa as a shithole country kind of makes you racist and stupid, but we're talking about what third party sources report. The UN's view is not only relevant —it's highly noteworthy.- MrX 14:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Why is it racist? Most of those countries that was mentioned are run by dictators, corrupt and all around shitty countries. It doesn't make one racist for stating the obvious. Look at Haiti which he supposedly called shithole, it sits on the same island as the Domincan Republic yet that is really all that can be said as a comparison between the two. Sometimes countries are shitholes and it's not necessarily racist to say so. And we can't report on this regardless because it's just he said she said, until there is ample evidence this is just more gossip. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Hey Sir Joseph, thanks for proving that you really have no business editing this topic area.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Coming from you I take that as a huge compliment. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Statements can be attributed; also this is more about in general about his well-documented statements in support of birtherism (racist conspiracy theory) and other statements.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

It should also be noted that it is not the UN as a whole making that statement but a UN official. PackMecEng (talk) 14:49, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Reported in RS as the UN; IIRC it's a spokesperson.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Yup, UN human rights spokesman - and last I checked spokesmen speak for their organizations.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:22, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Yup I found the article you were referring to, he speaks for the human rights commission. Not the UN as a whole. Thanks! PackMecEng (talk) 15:57, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

"It's really irrelevant what the UN says" – no, it's not. --Tataral (talk) 15:24, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

"Sen. Dick Durbin: President Trump used 'hate-filled, vile and racist' language in immigration meeting". Frankly, it's freakin' ridiculous that information on Trump's views regarding race have been kept out of this (and might I add, several other) articles for all this time, since it's like THE major issue surrounding his presidency.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:34, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Anyone feel free to jump in and help with the article. Then we can distill out a ~6-8 paragraph summary to put in this article.- MrX 15:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Since the page has been created, it should be linked to Political positions of Donald Trump. However, the "political positions" of the subject should not be a subsection of his election campaign (as currently on this page). This should be an upper level section. But one can reasonably argue that the page is about his personal views, rather than about a "political position" (as a President). Than it can be also mentioned and linked from this page. My very best wishes (talk) 17:23, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Before we link it to his main BLP we should let it settle down for a bit. To much changing right now and it is no where near good enough condition. It really should not of been moved out of draft space yet either. PackMecEng (talk) 17:28, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's not policy-based reasoning. The article is a C class article with excellent sourcing. It can be linked now.- MrX 17:34, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

At the point I reverted the link to the new article, it was still in a shitty mess. While things have improved greatly since then, the article still has multiple issues. There's no hurry, so I recommend we ONLY link to this new article at the same time as we add an appropriate summary of it, otherwise it just looks like a bit of a POV fork. Patience! -- Scjessey (talk) 17:53, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, such a section and article hasn't been there for years, can wait a few hours/days. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:58, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah no, that is far from a C class article especially about a BLP and if by excellent sources you mean many opinion and commentary pieces you would be correct. Otherwise you are just wrong in your assessment. PackMecEng (talk) 17:56, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah. Definitely a class C, on its way to B. Most of the sources are objective news sources, not commentary. Almost all of them came from stable, established articles. It's also not a BLP. You see, the 'B' in BLP mean biography.- MrX 19:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

@MrX:. You do know that just because you say these things that does not make them fact right? Are you trying to argue that a complete article about a BLP does not fall into the BLP category? Take a look at the talk page for the article and look at the big BLP banner at the top, you are sorely mistaken in your views. PackMecEng (talk) 19:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Please don't ping me again. I have no interest in pursuing this line of discussion.- MrX 19:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

PME is correct as to BLP, of course, as any read of the lead of WP:BLP shows. No opinion on the rest. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I hope that it's OK that I added a section to this article using the lead from what is now the main article. What with a world-wide explosion of news coverage on this incident I felt that we needed to put something in the article. And, it will help direct people to the new article. It needs perhaps work and the refs need fixing. Gandydancer (talk) 22:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Popcornduff for fixing the language in the racial views section - think the same needs to be done Donald Trump racial views. Am also wondering about adding this sort of criticism across the body, and perhaps to the lead... Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:09, 13 January 2018 (UTC) I did fix up some of it. I really do think that "Many of Trump's comments have been criticized as racist" should be in the lead and/or his policies have been described as bigoted/islamophobic/something like that. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:15, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

@Galobtter:, regarding your comment: "I really do think that "Many of Trump's comments have been criticized as racist" should be in the lead and/or his policies have been described as bigoted/islamophobic/something like that". I agree. And the lede is supposed to summarize what is in the body of the article. If this is covered in the body then is should be appropriate for the lede. But, I am interested in other editors' opinion because this is strong stuff and I think some sort of consensus would be helpful (imho). ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Steve Quinn I've proposed it below. Leads indeed should summarize the body. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:38, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Reboot and use lead from sub-article

This is an example of a "backwards" spinoff situation. Normally one creates an article (this one) and a section like this one gets so bloated that it creates an undue weight situation. To honor WP:PRESERVE, that content is not deleted or pared down, but is spun off into a sub-article, leaving a nice section and "main" article link. Well, now we do have Donald Trump racial views.

Here we're discussing what to include in this section, and ignoring a simpler, easier, and more logical solution. Just use the lead from the Donald Trump racial views article. If written properly, that lead should summarize the article and be very usable here. Then pick one or two of the best summarizing phrases and sources to include in the lead here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

If you are suggesting that anything about racial attitudes should go into the lede of THIS article, I disagree. We have currently created a very nice, DUE, well sourced, several-paragraph section about "racial views" as a subsection of "Image". That seems to be working very well, but it's not an important enough aspect of the entire biography to be included in the lede. --MelanieN (talk) 00:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I obviously disagree. No more than a sentence would do it: "Trump has been accused of racist attitudes." The due weight is provided by the existence of an entire sub-article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Otherwise, what do you think about just using the lead from the sub-article? The content here is being created ad hoc and not necessarily balanced. The lead there would do the job much better. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

About the George Yancy quote

In the "racial views" section we currently have a quote from a historian, George Yancy, describing Trump's outlook as “white supremacist”. I think it should be deleted. We have multiple sources describing a consensus about his racial views; many say “racist,” none say “white supremacist” which is a different thing (“racial views” is how a person thinks; “white supremacist” is a political philosophy, favoring action to favor whites and disfavor other races). We have a section elsewhere in the article about white supremacy/white nationalism; introducing the term here seems jarringly out of place. --MelanieN (talk) 17:49, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I suppose we could cut to the chase and quote Yancy as saying “Is the president racist? I would say unequivocally yes to that". We should probably delete it though unless it is cited by a few other sources. Also, we should not get hung up on the scope under the section heading "Racial views" which is necessarily imprecise. The section really should be called History of racially-provocative remarks and racially-motivated actions, but that would be a little cumbersome. In my mind, tacit support of white supremacists is a component of racism. - MrX 18:01, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I also view the term racism pretty broadly. It is my impression that WP does as well... Gandydancer (talk) 18:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I guess my point was that there is no reason to quote Yancy at all - whether about white supremacy or racism. We should try for a more general view in this biography, not quote single individuals.--MelanieN (talk) 18:52, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I did wonder about it... I do trust the impressions/suggestions of more experienced political editors...like you. Gandydancer (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I generally agree.- MrX 19:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Separate issue since you bring up the title: I was wondering if his anti-Muslim statements should be included in the article. Those are not specifically racist, reflecting religious prejudice rather than racial - but IMO the issue of Muslims is as much ethnic as religious in his mind. If we do include those comments and actions, would we need a broader title than "racial views", or is the term elastic enough to include anti-Muslim remarks as well? --MelanieN (talk) 18:52, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's an interesting and difficult question. Although I think that the anti-Muslim statements probably overlap with Trump's views of non-white people, my instinct is that we should not expand the scope of the article to include this. On the other hand, if we have several sources that clearly make the connection, then I would not object to including that material.- MrX 19:15, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I think we must err on the side of caution in this matter, but MelanieN, your thoughtful remarks above led me to consider the distinction you make. I must say that "white supremacist is the more objective term, since it refers to a practical and objective order. "Racist" on the other hand, relates to one's sentiment and needs an inference that would have to be very well sourced and documented. So just as an aside (for now) the tone of RS discussion over the past few days has been squarely stating that POTUS is a white supremacist and relating this to his entire public history -- starting with his fleeing the Sh@H@le borough of Queens for the environs of the 21 Club and Tiffany's in Manhattan, NY. SPECIFICO talk 22:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

The problem with that, SPECIFICO, is that lots of Reliable Sources, especially recently, describe him or his language as racist. They do not describe him as white supremacist. --MelanieN (talk) 00:49, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh. 😲 SPECIFICO talk 01:28, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I did find this if it's helpful: "Is the President racist? I would say unequivocally yes to that," said Emory University professor George Yancy and the author of On Race: 34 Conversations In A Time Of Crisis. "Had he said one thing one time, we might say that was a slip of the tongue or it's an example of unconscious racial bias or it was a mistake," he added. "But I don't think this is a case of unconscious racial bias. I think this is a case of unabashed white supremacist ideas." [25] Gandydancer (talk) 16:43, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I suspect that any rigorous examination of the subject would reach that conclusion. I wasn't being facetious about his fleeing Queens. It's home to 100 nationalities and its per capita income is a fraction of Manhattan's. We do need rigorous and thoughtful views on the subject these could be notable newsmedia commentators, but more likely the best sources will be one step removed from the daily deadlines. SPECIFICO talk 17:03, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

"the most racist President since Woodrow Wilson,"

This should be added "CNN presidential historian Douglas Brinkley declared that Trump is "the most racist President since Woodrow Wilson," and suggested he might even be worse." https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/brad-wilmouth/2018/01/12/brinkley-heart-stone-trump-most-racist-woodrow-wilson AHC300 (talk) 13:55, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Added to Racial views article IMO, atleast first, perhaps under other comments that he is racist, undue here I think Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Newsbusters is not a reliable source. Also, we should not write about individual opinions unless they are picked up by several other reliable sources. WP:DUEWEIGHT.- MrX 14:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I have noted that in the past few days several respected mainstream journalists have stated that POTUS' racist views are a core of his policy and persona. I don't think however that we can put this in the article citing individual journalists. I think we need to find a source that evaluates the range of RS discussion of POTUS' ongoing racist statements and policies and gives us a balanced NPOV statement we can rely on for DUE WEIGHT. SPECIFICO talk 14:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Meta-RS? That's new to me. Rather, the use of tertiary sources is very uncommon, I think. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:31, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

That'd be a secondary source as the journalist statements will be a primary source. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:34, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Then we'd need more than one, since no such meta analysis could be free of its own bias. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:48, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

But you wouldn't prefer a single secondary source's opinion, right? Because then we'd have all kinds of editor curated one-off opinions. <<The Kentucky Coiffure & Couture Meetup voted Pres. Trump the "Handsome Guy" award 2016.>> I think we need a secondary source that explicitly surveys the subject and the range of views by notable analysts. The views of a individual historians have a high variability SPECIFICO talk 15:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Can’t find my racist measurement tool. When a bunch of presidential historians say this, that would be noteworthy. O3000 (talk) 15:31, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Leave it out. We have only just now decided to reverse our previous consensus and add something about racist views to this biography. Emphasis on SOMETHING - we should not go from nothing at all to a huge exposition. Let's show a little balance and restraint, please. Our information on this subject should be kept focused and brief, giving it appropriate WP:WEIGHT for a biography article about a person about whom there is an enormous amount to say. As for this particular comment - an opinion from one historian, comparing Trump to a century-ago president about whose racist views modern readers know nothing - IMO that adds nothing of value to the article. If this comment gets picked up by secondary sources it could be put in the separate article/draft, but definitely not here. --MelanieN (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

The previous status is not really relevant, since it is obvious we have done a poor job of properly representing the extent of coverage, even before the recent comments. The coverage of this topic spans 45 years. We can certainly discuss what level of detail we should include, but this cant be covered in one or two paragraphs while we devote reams to real estate transaction and TV shows. That would seriously violate WP:NPOV and it would seriously underserve our readers, not all of whom are in the 39.1%. I know it's unpleasant to think that the leader of the free world [sic] may be racist, but I will remind us all that Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. - MrX 16:06, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Ehh, the tv shows and real estate transactions are much more relevant to Trump's life, and the article shouldn't have more on what we deem important (racism) over what we deem unimportant (tv shows) just because we think that is important. 2 paragraphs approximately enough. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Do you believe that the tv shows and real estate transactions have received "much more" RS coverage than the racism? I mean, outside of People magazine and CNBC et al. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Not much more perhaps, but this is also the biography of his life, and so things relating to things that have an impact on his life etc will be emphasized more - if the racism affected his life it'd be included more; the racism section is still decent length compared to the section on the Apprentice. And I am still arguing to include in the lead too. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:27, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

The parts about say the discrimination case that are more relevant to his life are also appropriately talked about elsewhere. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:28, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

That's backwards. This is his biography. Details about his Presidency (<2% of his life) are best covered elsewhere. Content about his racial views which span more than 60% of his life whould be covered in the article about his life. This is it.- MrX 16:41, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

They're all relevant to Trump's life. Let's compare the extent of coverage in reliable source for real estate transactions with the the extent of coverage in reliable sources for his racial views and actions. That's how WP:WEIGHT is determined, not by how large the real estate transaction are or how many viewers the Apprentice had.- MrX 16:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I think more criticism in general could be added throughout the article, but the section is reasonably of the correct size. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:27, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think we need to be unduly restrained, but we can't cherry-pick and rely on a single convenient but not demonstrably DUE WEIGHT source for a key point. In general, however, I think we've been too concerned about omitting central details concerning POTUS' public stands -- partly because of obstinate but empty objections here on talk by a small number of diehards. So I agree with MelanieN about this particular source and opinion -- let's leave Wilson out of this -- but I think we need to get busy and review this article's entire narrative of POTUS life and the principles to which he's dedicated himself. SPECIFICO talk 16:30, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

What I was saying above is the section doesn't need expansion, but throughout the article more DUE criticism etc is needed. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:35, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

@Galobtter: The section is about as large as the Acting and public image trivia section, so no, I don't think it's the correct size. For one thing, the white supremacy material should probably be folded under racial views. We are missing the very important phenomenon of reliable sources and notable people outright saying that Trump is racist. That's important and needs to be covered. - MrX 16:38, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, should be added yeah. That white supremacy thing probably should be combined; I'll just note that not all the criticism should be quartered in one section. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

There's been some good RS discussion recently of the long history and interrelated narratives of POTUS racist views and incitements. There's lots of significant material we need to read and evaluate. The result is likely to be a broad reworking of this article. SPECIFICO talk 16:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes. By the way, there is other material that could be placed under racial view, such as the birther conspiracy. Of course we should leave a sentence or two in the existing sections for context.- MrX 17:06, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments about Trump by individuals are only significant if they receive wide coverage. It is dubious anyway. An article in Newsweek compares Trump to some recent incumbents.[26] And don't forget the Willie Horton ad or that with his law and order and welfare reforms Clinton caused more harm to blacks than any president since Hayes ended Reconstruction. U.S. post-war foreign policy has also been seen by many as racist. TFD (talk) 17:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Which war? SPECIFICO talk 17:18, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

[27] ―Mandruss ☎ 19:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

This comment was apparently addressed to the associated press and picked up by some other sources like the hill. The source - https://www.apnews.com/bce2dc7a054e4541bc77e2971c1bde4e/Trump%27s-own-words-revive-debate-over-whether-he%27s-racist seems pretty useful, taking a broader look at his history. I've added the historian's analysis to the racial views article. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:25, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Where to put the "racial views" coverage

I think it is inappropriate that we gave this section a level 2 header, as if it was a whole general category of information comparable to "business career" or "political career". IMO it should be a subsection under a more general area. MrX suggested folding the "white supremacy" material in; how about we do the opposite and fold this "racial views" material into the "white supremacy" section? --MelanieN (talk) 16:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

We should either put this in family and personal life or keep at level 2, don't lie and say it is something that just begun in his presidency (even if it does seem like it was only noticed then). --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:48, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

IMO, the political image should be put into a level 2 header and racial views under that. It isn't at all appropriate in the campaign section along with the white nationalist support etc thing; merge in the public image parts from media career and create a decent section. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Most about how people see it as racist, criticism, how it changes his image. There are some actions, but those are mostly covered elsewhere; its mostly statements. So fit under a large "Image" section, covering presidential image and campaign image and pre-campaign image etc. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:54, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm with his highness, Emir of Wikipedia. There is no other current level two heading under which this belongs. The 45 year history of racial statements and actions spans more than 60% of Trump's life, and is relevant to his personal life, his business life, and his political life. - MrX 17:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I did see create a new level two heading called "Image", not put it under a current heading.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I also said it could be put in the family and personal life as another subsection. The only thing I am absolutely opposing is this the inclusion of it just in the presidential section. A specific number of years or percentage is not that important as long as due weight is given. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:22, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure 'Image' would be best, but it's not a bad either. Another possibility is 'Legacy', which I believe is used in a number of other biographies. 'Family and personal life' is probably not great because the racial views are also intertwined with his business and political careers.- MrX 17:43, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think legacy would work as that is after retirement esque (for obama etc) or after death. Not really sure racial views would fit under that either Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

An "Image" section could be a good addition since it spans his personal, business, and political life. And we all know that his image is of tremendous importance to him. Not "Legacy," which usually refers to the lasting impact a person has on the world - often after they have died or retired. --MelanieN (talk) 17:52, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

As we all know, he has the best image folks. The best. Do think an Image section would be good; quite a lot his brand derives from that etc too - so important personally, to his business career, as being unpopular president etc Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

"Political views" or "Political views and image". Neither implies political office, we all have political views. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Not "political"; a person's beliefs about race are more philosophy than politics. --MelanieN (talk) 18:57, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I think Image is fine. It encompasses his political, personal, business, and popular culture image. Of course is racial views span at least three of these.- MrX 18:15, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Crooked Hillary has "Cultural and political image". Gandydancer (talk) 18:19, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

"Cultural" sounds a little off to me. There's nothing really cultural about placing full page newspaper ads calling for children to "be forced to suffer" .- MrX 18:25, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I didn't mean it as a suggestion - just for comparison. Gandydancer (talk) 18:51, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I support covering all pre-presidency race stuff in chronological order in the respective chornological sections, but having a dedicated subsection in the presidency section. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

That is why I put 'Image' before 'Political career', but maybe it should be placed before 'Media career' or even 'Business career'. I'm not sure.- MrX 19:19, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

If people insist on having a dedicated section or subsection on race that covers his entire life, then all of the race-related stuff needs to be removed from the chronological sections and put into that dedicated section or subsection to avoid redundancy, and the dedicated section or subsection needs to be moved after the chronological sections, just like the Hillary Clinton article has "Cultural and political image" after the chronological sections. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Per my previous comment, most of the race-related material should be moved under 'Racial views', but we should leave a small amount in the respective sections for context. The 'Image' section chronologically start at 1973 (or 1963 according to one source I'm still researching), so the Image section actually belongs in a position parallel to 'Business career', or as close as we can get to that.- MrX 19:43, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

The "Image" section chronologically ends in 2018, so can be placed immediately after the presidency section. Putting it in the middle of chronological sections puts a wrench into the chronology, because readers would read about his business career, then read about race stuff during his presidency, and then read about his campaign for president, which is nuts. Please follow the example at Hillary Clinton and many other featured BLPs by placing the image section after the chronological sections. Jamming it as high up in this BLP as possible is not apt. Thanks. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:54, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

You keep highlighting after for some reason. The Chronology is: Trump was born>raised>educated>started a business career>started a political career>became president. His image spans all but the first two of those, so the logical place to cover it is right before or right after the 'Business career' section. It doesn't belong at the end pf the article. We're not trying to hide it, are we?- MrX 20:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, for some mysterious reason I keep highlighting that. You seem to be insisting on discussing his relationship to racism as president before you discuss his campaign for president, which is out of sequence chronologically. Go look at featured articles like John McCain and Hillary Clinton. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Neither John McCain or Hillary Clinton have a long history of racially-provocative remarks and actions that have been reported in hundreds (possibly thousands) of sources for 45 years, so that comparison is not useful.- MrX 20:22, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

They both have "Cultural and political image" sections that are put after the chronological sections of their BLP's, because putting them in the middle of the chronological sections would disrupt chronological order. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:31, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Putting the "Image" section at the end - after the "president" section - makes sense to me. It's a kind of summary-of-his-entire-life section, it has no chronology. --MelanieN (talk) 00:53, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

The exact same argument could be made for placing the section at the beginning, and it would have the additional benefit of summarizing his life before getting into the intricate details of his business and campaign. This might have to be decided with an RfC, because there's no clear guideline that would apply to an article like this.- MrX 01:07, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

There may not be a clear guideline, but there is some precedent. In addition to the two articles mentioned above there is also Ronald Reagan. All three have some version of an "image section" at the end of the article, and all three are Featured Articles which means they have undergone extensive review. --MelanieN (talk) 01:19, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Trump is a unique case. In the case of Reagan, which was written well after he left office, the content is written in a 'Legacy' section as I mentioned above. If we included a couple of sentences in the lead that could properly summarize Trump's 45 years of racial remarks and actions, I could live with burying this way under the fold on page E-12. As it stands though, our reader should not be left in the dark. Eyes will glaze over as a reader loses interest around the hotels and golf courses.

I think we need a few other voices here to determine where we place the 'Image' section. Pinging recent editors for their thoughts on this: BullRangifer — Awilley — Casprings — Malerooster — SPECIFICO — Gandydancer — Galobtter — The Four Deuces — Emir of Wikipedia — Mandruss: AHC300 — Volunteer Marek — Steve Quinn — Objective3000 — PackMecEng — Scjessey — Sir Joseph — My very best wishes — Tataral — ChieftanTartarus: Signedzzz — Ad Orientem:- MrX 13:50, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Alert to new sub-section above: Talk:Donald Trump#Reboot and use lead from sub-article -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I think the image section should stay where it is now, just before the politics section. It is liable to get lost, at the end of the article, that is where I would expect to find unimportant details. zzz (talk) 14:07, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Either a subsection of "Family and personal life" or put it after the political sections. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:32, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

1. I boldly changed the header to "Public profile" -- "image" is a very broad term that does not specify the content of the section. 2. I think the Public Profile section would logically go between Family and Religion, as it relates to a lifelong aspect of his core that relates to most categories of his biography and it would be wrong to miscategorize it below as if it were a single event or as something related only to his business, his media career, or his political activities. SPECIFICO talk 14:36, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I endorse the edit by SPECIFICO. The title "public profile" and the current location in the article are appropriate. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:44, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I also endorse this edit. Paid for by CRASEY (Campaign to Review and Approve SPECIFICO's Edits, Y'all!)- MrX 14:49, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I endorse current version. This content does belong to "public profile" or "public image". My very best wishes (talk) 15:34, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I endorse the present edit. Excellent move and the article now reads very smoothly. Gandydancer (talk) 16:07, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I concur. It looks good. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:27, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I endorse. Works for me. O3000 (talk) 17:39, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Here, here er.. I endorse... Steve Quinn (talk) 23:48, 14 January 2018 (UTC) -- the edit makes sense - Steve Quinn (talk) 23:52, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Dartmouth research: Trump and fake news

I'm not sure where to put this. Maybe here, or maybe some other article. A recent study from Dartmouth is receiving attention in secondary sources:

Selective Exposure to Misinformation: Evidence from the consumption of fake news during the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign

People who supported Trump were far more likely to visit fake news websites — especially those that are pro-Trump — than Clinton supporters. Among Trump supporters, 40% read at least one article from a pro-Trump fake news website ... compared with only 15% of Clinton supporters.... Consumption of articles from pro-Clinton fake news websites was much lower, though also somewhat divided by candidate support. Clinton supporters were modestly more likely to have visited pro-Clinton fake news websites ... versus Trump supporters .... The differences by candidate preference that we observe in fake news website visits are even more pronounced when expressed in terms of the composition of the overall news diets of each group. Articles on fake news websites represented an average of 6.2% of the pages visited on sites that focused on news topics among Trump supporters versus 0.8% among Clinton supporters.

That's literally 8 times as much! That's very significant.

One secondary source interviewed one of the authors, Brendan Nyhan, and they discussed the findings. Here's an interesting quote:

NBC:

"It feels like there’s a connection between having an active portion of a party that’s prone to seeking false stories and conspiracies and a president who has famously spread conspiracies and false claims. In many ways, demographically and ideologically, the president fits the profile of the fake news users that you’re describing."

Nyhan:

"It’s worrisome if fake news websites further weaken the norm against false and misleading information in our politics, which unfortunately has eroded. But it’s also important to put the content provided by fake news websites in perspective. People got vastly more misinformation from Donald Trump than they did from fake news websites -- full stop." (emphasis added)

BullRangifer (talk) 17:09, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I think it should be covered in United States presidential election, 2016 and Fake news. I'm not sure how it could fit into this article.- MrX 01:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

The reason is because pro-clintonites get their fake news from mainstream news sites. עם ישראל חי 16:07, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with MrX. Possible in those two articles; not in this BLP. --MelanieN (talk) 17:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)