Talk:Donald Trump

Highlighted open discussions

• #RfC: Birtherism in the lede

NOTE: It is recommended to link to this list in your edit summary when reverting, as:
[[Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensus|current consensus]] item [n]
To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to .

01. Use the official White House portrait as the infobox image. (Dec 2016, Jan 2017, Oct 2017, March 2020) (temporarily suspended by #19 following copyright issues on the inauguration portrait, enforced when an official public-domain portrait was released on 31 October 2017)

02. Show birthplace as "Queens, New York City, U.S." in the infobox. (Nov 2016, Oct 2018, Feb 2021) "New York City" de-linked. (September 2020)

03. Omit reference to county-level election statistics. (Dec 2016)

04. Superseded by #15

Lead phrasing of Trump "gaining a majority of the U.S. Electoral College" and "receiving a smaller share of the popular vote nationwide", without quoting numbers. (Nov 2016, Dec 2016) (Superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)

05. Use Trump's annual net worth evaluation and matching ranking, from the Forbes list of billionaires, not from monthly or "live" estimates. (Oct 2016) In the lead section, just write: Forbes estimates his net worth to be [$x.x] billion. (July 2018, July 2018) Removed from the lead per #47.

06. Do not include allegations of sexual misconduct in the lead section. (June 2016, Feb 2018)

07. Superseded by #35

Include "Many of his public statements were controversial or false." in the lead. (Sep 2016, February 2017, wording shortened per April 2017, upheld with July 2018) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019)

08. Mention that Trump is the first president elected "without prior military or government service". (Dec 2016)

09. Include a link to Trump's Twitter account in the "External links" section. (Jan 2017) Include a link to an archive of Trump's Twitter account in the "External links" section. (Jan 2021)

10. Canceled

Keep Barron Trump's name in the list of children and wikilink it, which redirects to his section in Family of Donald Trump per AfD consensus. (Jan 2017, Nov 2016) Canceled: Barron's BLP has existed since June 2019. (June 2024)

11. Superseded by #17

The lead sentence is "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman, television personality, politician, and the 45th President of the United States." (Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017) (superseded by #17 since 2 April 2017)

12. The article title is Donald Trump, not Donald J. Trump. (RM Jan 2017, RM June 2019)

13. Auto-archival is set for discussions with no comments for 14 days. Manual archival is allowed for (1) closed discussions, 24 hours after the closure, provided the closure has not been challenged, and (2) "answered" edit requests, 24 hours after the "answer", provided there has been no follow-on discussion after the "answer". (Jan 2017) (amended with respect to manual archiving, to better reflect common practice at this article) (Nov 2019)

14. Omit mention of Trump's alleged bathmophobia/fear of slopes. (Feb 2017)

15. Superseded by lead rewrite

Supersedes #4. There is no consensus to change the formulation of the paragraph which summarizes election results in the lead (starting with "Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, …"). Accordingly the pre-RfC text (Diff 8 Jan 2017) has been restored, with minor adjustments to past tense (Diff 11 Feb 2018). No new changes should be applied without debate. (RfC Feb 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017, Feb 2017) In particular, there is no consensus to include any wording akin to "losing the popular vote". (RfC March 2017) (Superseded by local consensus on 26 May 2017 and lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017)

16. Superseded by lead rewrite

Do not mention Russian influence on the presidential election in the lead section. (RfC March 2017) (Superseded by lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017)

17. Superseded by #50

Supersedes #11. The lead paragraph is "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current president of the United States. Before entering politics, he was a businessman and television personality." The hatnote is simply {{Other uses}}. (April 2017, RfC April 2017, April 2017, April 2017, April 2017, July 2017, Dec 2018) Amended by lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017 and removal of inauguration date on 4 July 2018. Lower-case "p" in "president" per Dec 2018 and MOS:JOBTITLES RfC Oct 2017. Wikilinks modified per April 2020. Wikilink modified again per July 2020. "45th" de-linked. (Jan 2021)

18. Superseded by #63

The "Alma mater" infobox entry shows "Wharton School (BS Econ.)", does not mention Fordham University. (April 2017, April 2017, Aug 2020, Dec 2020)

19. Obsolete

Following deletion of Trump's official White House portrait for copyright reasons on 2 June 2017, infobox image was replaced by File:Donald Trump Pentagon 2017.jpg. (June 2017 for replacement, June 2017, declined REFUND on 11 June 2017) (replaced by White House official public-domain portrait according to #1 since 31 Oct 2017)

20. Mention protests in the lead section with this exact wording: His election and policies have sparked numerous protests. (June 2017, May 2018) (Note: In February 2021, when he was no longer president, the verb tense was changed from "have sparked" to "sparked", without objection.)

21. Superseded by #39

Omit any opinions about Trump's psychology held by mental health academics or professionals who have not examined him. (July 2017, Aug 2017) (superseded by #36 on 18 June 2019, then by #39 since 20 Aug 2019)

22. Do not call Trump a "liar" in Wikipedia's voice. Falsehoods he uttered can be mentioned, while being mindful of calling them "lies", which implies malicious intent. (RfC Aug 2017, upheld by RfC July 2024)

23. Superseded by #52

The lead includes the following sentence: Trump ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, citing security concerns; after legal challenges, the Supreme Court upheld the policy's third revision. (Aug 2017, Nov 2017, Dec 2017, Jan 2018, Jan 2018) Wording updated (July 2018) and again (Sep 2018).

24. Superseded by #30

Do not include allegations of racism in the lead. (Feb 2018) (superseded by #30 since 16 Aug 2018)

25. In citations, do not code the archive-related parameters for sources that are not dead. (Dec 2017, March 2018)

26. Do not include opinions by Michael Hayden and Michael Morell that Trump is a "useful fool […] manipulated by Moscow" or an "unwitting agent of the Russian Federation". (RfC April 2018)

27. State that Trump falsely claimed that Hillary Clinton started the Barack Obama birther rumors. (April 2018, June 2018)

28. Include, in the Wealth section, a sentence on Jonathan Greenberg's allegation that Trump deceived him in order to get on the Forbes 400 list. (June 2018, June 2018)

29. Include material about the Trump administration family separation policy in the article. (June 2018)

30. Supersedes #24. The lead includes: "Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist." (RfC Sep 2018, Oct 2018, RfC May 2019)

31. Do not mention Trump's office space donation to Jesse Jackson's Rainbow/Push Coalition in 1999. (Nov 2018)

32. Omit from the lead the fact that Trump is the first sitting U.S. president to meet with a North Korean supreme leader. (RfC July 2018, Nov 2018)

33. Do not mention "birtherism" in the lead section. (RfC Nov 2018)

34. Refer to Ivana Zelníčková as a Czech model, with a link to Czechs (people), not Czechoslovakia (country). (Jan 2019)

35. Superseded by #49

Supersedes #7. Include in the lead: Trump has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency. The statements have been documented by fact-checkers, and the media have widely described the phenomenon as unprecedented in American politics. (RfC Feb 2019)

36. Superseded by #39

Include one paragraph merged from Health of Donald Trump describing views about Trump's psychology expressed by public figures, media sources, and mental health professionals who have not examined him. (June 2019) (paragraph removed per RfC Aug 2019 yielding consensus #39)

37. Resolved: Content related to Trump's presidency should be limited to summary-level about things that are likely to have a lasting impact on his life and/or long-term presidential legacy. If something is borderline or debatable, the resolution does not apply. (June 2019)

38. Do not state in the lead that Trump is the wealthiest U.S. president ever. (RfC June 2019)

39. Supersedes #21 and #36. Do not include any paragraph regarding Trump's mental health or mental fitness for office. Do not bring up for discussion again until an announced formal diagnosis or WP:MEDRS-level sources are provided. This does not prevent inclusion of content about temperamental fitness for office. (RfC Aug 2019, July 2021)

40. Include, when discussing Trump's exercise or the lack thereof: He has called golfing his "primary form of exercise", although he usually does not walk the course. He considers exercise a waste of energy, because he believes the body is "like a battery, with a finite amount of energy" which is depleted by exercise. (RfC Aug 2019)

41. Omit book authorship (or lack thereof) from the lead section. (RfC Nov 2019)

42. House and Senate outcomes of the impeachment process are separated by a full stop. For example: He was impeached by the House on December 18, 2019, for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. He was acquitted of both charges by the Senate on February 5, 2020. (Feb 2020)

43. The rules for edits to the lead are no different from those for edits below the lead. For edits that do not conflict with existing consensus: Prior consensus is NOT required. BOLD edits are allowed, subject to normal BRD process. The mere fact that an edit has not been discussed is not a valid reason to revert it. (March 2020)

44. The lead section should mention North Korea, focusing on Trump's meetings with Kim and some degree of clarification that they haven't produced clear results. (RfC May 2020)

45. Superseded by #48

There is no consensus to mention the COVID-19 pandemic in the lead section. (RfC May 2020, July 2020)

46. Use the caption "Official portrait, 2017" for the infobox image. (Aug 2020, Jan 2021)

47. Do not mention Trump's net worth or Forbes ranking (or equivalents from other publications) in the lead, nor in the infobox. (Sep 2020)

48. Supersedes #45. Trump's reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic should be mentioned in the lead section. There is no consensus on specific wording, but the status quo is Trump reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic; he minimized the threat, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, and promoted false information about unproven treatments and the availability of testing. (Oct 2020, RfC Aug 2020)

49. Supersedes #35. Include in lead: Trump has made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics. (Dec 2020)

50. Supersedes #17. The lead sentence is: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. (March 2021), amended (July 2021), inclusion of politician (RfC September 2021)

51. Include in the lead that many of Trump's comments and actions have been characterized as misogynistic. (Aug 2021 and Sep 2021)

52. Supersedes #23. The lead should contain a summary of Trump's actions on immigration, including the Muslim travel ban (cf. item 23), the wall, and the family separation policy. (September 2021)

53. The lead should mention that Trump promotes conspiracy theories. (RfC October 2021)

54. Include in the lead that, quote, Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in U.S. history. (RfC October 2021) Amended after re-election: After his first term, scholars and historians ranked Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history. (November 2024)

55. Regarding Trump's comments on the 2017 far-right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, do not wiki-link "Trump's comments" in this manner. (RfC December 2021)

56. Retain the content that Trump never confronted Putin over its alleged bounties against American soldiers in Afghanistan but add context. Current wording can be altered or contextualized; no consensus was achieved on alternate wordings. (RfC November 2021) Trump's expressions of doubt regarding the Russian Bounties Program should be included in some capacity, though there there is no consensus on a specific way to characterize these expressed doubts. (RfC March 2022)

57. Do not mention in the lead Gallup polling that states Trump's the only president to never reach 50% approval rating. (RfC January 2022)

58. Use inline citations in the lead for the more contentious and controversial statements. Editors should further discuss which sentences would benefit from having inline citations. (RfC May 2022, discussion on what to cite May 2022)

59. Do not label or categorize Trump as a far-right politician. (RfC August 2022)

60. Insert the links described in the RfC January 2023.

61. When a thread is started with a general assertion that the article is biased for or against Trump (i.e., without a specific, policy-based suggestion for a change to the article), it is to be handled as follows:

1. Reply briefly with a link to Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias, optionally using its shortcut, WP:TRUMPRCB.
2. Close the thread using {{archive top}} and {{archive bottom}}, referring to this consensus item.
3. Wait at least 24 hours per current consensus #13.
4. Manually archive the thread.

This does not apply to posts that are clearly in bad faith, which are to be removed on sight. (May 2023)

62. The article's description of the five people who died during and subsequent to the January 6 Capitol attack should avoid a) mentioning the causes of death and b) an explicit mention of the Capitol Police Officer who died. (RfC July 2023)

63. Supersedes #18. The alma mater field of the infobox reads: "University of Pennsylvania (BS)". (September 2023)

64. Omit the {{Very long}} tag. (January 2024)

65. Mention the Abraham Accords in the article; no consensus was achieved on specific wordings. (RfC February 2024)

66. Omit {{infobox criminal}}. (RfC June 2024)

67. The "Health habits" section includes: "Trump says he has never drunk alcohol, smoked cigarettes, or used drugs. He sleeps about four or five hours a night." (February 2021)

Charitable work with The Rainbow/Push Coalition on Wall Street

In 1999 Jesse Jackson gave thanks to Donald Trump for helping establish the Rainbow Push Coalition at 40 Wall Street in New York. Trump gave them a building to use in order to help black Americans have a presence on Wall St. In a speech on C-SPAN Jackson introduced Donald Trump by explaining his involvement, "when we opened this Wall Street Project and we talked about it, he gave us space at 40 Wall St. Which was to make a statement about us having a presence there. And beyond that, in terms of reaching out and being inclusive he has done that too....Last year he was a part of our workshop, of our panel workshop" Disciple4lif (talk) 11:30, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Truly awful source. O3000 (talk) 11:41, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

I have now removed the parameter causing the video to skip the first 349 seconds. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:43, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand why you call this an "awful source". This was a serious statement by a reputable person, Jessie Jackson, made in front of the C-SPAN cameras at a public event, and it was covered by the contemporary press. It checks all the boxes for appropriate encyclopedic sourcing. Jackson praised Trump for supporting his anti-discrimination initiative, and having taken an interest in his presidential candidacies of 1984 and 1988 while others were avoiding him. After Jackson's introduction, Trump went on to praise black construction workers that he employed. Oh jeez that goes against the "racist asshole" narrative, must be bad sourcing. The real question should be "how do we include this fact properly?" This was discussed at Talk:Racial views of Donald Trump/Archive 5#Trump donated Wall Street office space to Jesse Jackson's PUSH Coalition, with many editors supporting inclusion, but some others pushing hard against it, so that it was left out of the article after exhaustion of the debaters. Probably time for an RfC. — JFG ^talk 08:58, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Not worthy of inclusion per WP:WEIGHT, obviously. Besides, I'm sure this was just a tax write off. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:43, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

We assign lots of weight to one-off incidents that paint Trump in a bad light, such as the "bad earpiece" anecdote about disavowing David Duke, but we dismiss any event that shows him positively, such as this one, or the more recent pardons of two unjustly condemned black people. I just wish the choice of elements to include in this biography could be a little more neutral. — JFG ^talk 00:17, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand why you call this an "awful source". Did you see the video before Mandruss fixed it? Did you see the end of the video? The source doesn't belong anywhere near an encyclopedia. If there are incidents that should be removed, argue to remove them. That's not an excuse to add self-serving, incidents without context. O3000 (talk) 00:29, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I did not see the video before whatever Mandruss fixed. If there was a technical issue, that should not prevent us from referencing a C-SPAN segment documenting what happened between Trump and Jackson. Regarding the selection of an event or another, I am genuinely concerned that anything that can be construed as positive towards the article subject is usually rejected as undue, whereas most of the negative things are accepted, no matter how insignificant. But you're right, we must discuss each phrase separately. — JFG ^talk 02:24, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

"...or racist"?

I think we are to the point where I can close this meta-discussion, move it to the archived discussion, and formally close that discussion. Thank you, all, for your input. --MelanieN (talk) 21:20, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

P.S. All of the discussion on this topic - both the earlier discussion which had been archived without closure, and the later discussion which took place here - can now be found in one place at Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 92#Wording for sentence in lead on racial stance. --MelanieN (talk) 21:44, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

FYI to all, this appears to be a WP:IAR. Except for removing discussions that have been restored to the talk page, it's my understanding that archives should not be modified without EXTREMELY good reason, such as repairing damage to the archive page. In my experience there is virtually always another option that is at least acceptable if not ideal. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:59, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it is unusual to modify archives, and yes, this was IAR. The problem was that the discussion had been archived without closure. If I wanted to have the closure attached to the discussion I was closing, this seemed like the only way to do it. --MelanieN (talk) 00:03, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

@MelanieN: A premature archive before closure is not unusual and, no, that's not the only way to do it. The standard action is to copy-and-paste the discussion to the talk page, remove it from the archive (see Except for removing discussions that have been restored to the talk page, above), and then close it on the talk page as normal. If caught early enough, it can be as easy as two "undo's" on the talk and archive pages. {{DNAU}} can be used to prevent premature archival. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:43, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, I endorse MelanieN's IAR action in this instance. FBDB, YMMV, GCHQ. — JFG ^talk 15:20, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

GCHQ?? --MelanieN (talk) 04:01, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I can neither confirm nor deny the influence of our employers on the 'pedia. — JFG ^talk 09:26, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

UK interference in the Donald Trump Wikipedia article Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:30, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Alcohol

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.

---

We say: Trump does not drink alcohol except occasional wine, such as at communion. This decision arose in part from watching his older brother Fred Jr. suffer from alcoholism that contributed to his early death in 1981.

That could be read as meaning "He used to drink, but has not done so since 1981". Yet he's on record, most recently today, as saying he has never had a drink in his entire life. That's a rather different thing. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:04, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Good catch, there is a problem with that statement. Let’s look at the sources. There are two references for the “alcohol” line in the article. At CNN, he says about Communion, “When I drink my little wine -- which is about the only wine I drink -- and have my little cracker…” Saying ABOUT the only wine he drinks implies that he does occasionally drink wine. But that would be WP:OR; we should take his word for it that he doesn’t drink. (In the religion section he claims he takes Holy Communion as often as possible. And he also claims to be a Presbyterian. At a Presbyterian church he is not going to get wine and a cracker; he is going to get grape juice and bread. Just another indication that he doesn’t really practice religion and basically knows nothing about religion. But I digress.)

The other source in the article is the White House doctor saying he has “no past or present use of alcohol.” Of course, that kind of history is self-reported by the patient. Neither of these is a very good source, and neither mentions his brother.

The source we should use is this one from CNN, in which Trump tells the story of his brother. I suggest something like this, based on the source: "Trump says he never drank or smoked because of advice that he was given by his older brother, Fred Trump Jr., an alcoholic who died in 1981 at age 43." --MelanieN (talk) 01:54, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

That would obviously be contradicted by “When I drink my little wine -- which is about the only wine I drink..." Concerns about OR (which I don't really understand) cannot override the need for what we write to make sense. HiLo48 (talk) 03:02, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I was just watching some type of televised conference that looked like it was recorded outside the White House. Trump was speaking, and it was very clear from his statements that he never had alcohol at any point in his life and he would be worse off if he had. There were a bunch of unidentified people behind him seemingly laughing in agreement. I don't really care what the circumstances are, but drinking alcohol in church is certainly drinking alcohol which would make his statement false. I'm sure I'm missing something. 108.200.234.93 (talk) 06:40, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Do you think we should try to find some way to square these things? For example, to use the sentence I proposed above where he says he never drank or smoked, and add him saying that "about the only wine" he drinks is when he takes Communion? --MelanieN (talk) 06:49, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

But the quote about communion is "...which is about the only wine I drink". My emphasis, of course. He didn't need the word "about" if the only time he EVER drinks is in church. I know Trump is not always the world's clearest speaker, but I don't think we can ignore that little word. HiLo48 (talk) 07:15, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Trump has been known as a teetotaler for decades. The communion wine quote is a self-sourced remark made jokingly in passing, and should be discounted. I think we should cite sources reporting on Trump's absence of drinking at various times during his life. — JFG ^talk 10:21, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree we can leave out the "ABOUT the only time" comment; reliable sources do not seem to have pounced on it to say "Aha! So he DOES drink!" And I don't see any need (or any sources) for the various stages of his life. He doesn't drink now and he never has - self reported but not contradicted by anyone. One or two sentences, in the health section, is exactly the right amount of coverage. --MelanieN (talk) 16:56, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Whether or not Trump drinks alcohol is an unremarkable bit of trivia. Seriously, who cares? Let's just cut it out of the article completely. -- Scjessey (talk) 10:34, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

No, the fact does deserve short mention. It's a rather unusual position for a public person. People can interpret it as a strength (alcohol abuse and alcoholism are negative) or a weakness (can one trust someone that different from the rest of society?). Those are just opinions, but it's a notable fact that he's a teetotaler. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:41, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

There are about eleventy-billion things more notable than his alleged abstention from alcohol. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:44, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

This is not the suppository for every bit of trivia. Just because it is verifiable does not make it notable. PackMecEng (talk) 16:52, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Suppository? I do not think that word means what you think it means. --MelanieN (talk) 17:01, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

That is exactly the word I meant PackMecEng (talk) 17:09, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, Scjessey and PackMecEng. This is a notable fact, virtually always mentioned in anything written about his lifestyle, and it deserves to be here. Not many politicians can say they don't drink alcohol and never have. --MelanieN (talk) 16:53, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Allegedly don't drink it. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:57, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

There is no reason to disbelieve it. If he did drink alcoholic beverages, in private or on the sly, it would long since have been reported. Is it really so impossible to believe that a person chooses not to drink? Hey, I don't smoke and never have; is that "allegedly" too? --MelanieN (talk) 17:09, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

@MelanieN: It might be if you had a decades-long reputation for dishonesty, particularly about yourself. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:14, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

You mean I don't? Good to know. --MelanieN (talk) 21:37, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Debatable. Heck the last bush did not drink either. That fact was only notable for him because of his DUI incident. There is no notable incident tied to Trump and drinking. Just useless trivia. PackMecEng (talk) 16:59, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

He’s said in the past that he very rarely drinks. I have no problem with saying he doesn’t drink. I just don’t like the word “never”. Never is a long time for a 72 year old. O3000 (talk)

What would you all think about this proposed sentence and reference - to replace what we now have? (This thread was started because the current info is ambiguous, not to mention that it's not supported by the cited sources.)

Trump has said he does not drink alcohol because he was advised not to by his older brother, Fred Trump Jr., an alcoholic who died in 1981 at age 43.

Sources

--MelanieN (talk) 18:07, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

• Weak oppose - The article is about Donald Trump, not Fred Jr. If we must have this trivia, I think it would be sufficient to simply say "Trump has said he does not drink alcohol." With that said, my opposition to this is very weak - almost to the point of not caring. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:35, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

  There are many reports about his abstinence, and every one of them mentions his brother. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] It’s a significant part of his life story. BTW I deliberately did not say "never" in my proposed sentence. --MelanieN (talk) 20:39, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

• oppose - Total trivia - Hillary clinton drinks alchohol, Obamha drinks alcohol is not in their articles. Govindaharihari (talk) 18:58, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

  First, remember WP:OSE. That being set aside, the fact that politician X or Y drinks some alcohol is not notable, because most people in society do, to varying degrees. If somebody does not drink at all, that is out of the ordinary, and therefore worth mentioning. If somebody drinks a lot and consequently gets in trouble, that is also unusual and worth mentioning. — JFG ^talk 19:06, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support His claim that he does not drink alcohol is out of ordinary for an American president or as a matter of fact for anybody who is not bound by religion to do so is encyclopedic and worth mentioning! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:56, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support - Noteworthy per JFG, avoids wiki voice, clears up the ambiguity in the current content. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:22, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - We cannot decide for ourselves which of Trump's own claims about himself is true. He has made a statement about his church drinking that says he does drink alcohol there, with an implication that he also has a little bit at other times. Yes, he talks crap at times, but we cannot choose to ignore that statement. Let's frame something that reports what he has said, including the church stuff, simply attributing the statement directly to him. No synthesis thanks. HiLo48 (talk) 21:15, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support. This should be mentioned because it's so unusual and has been mentioned many times in RS. One sentence is enough. I like MelanieN's version above. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:43, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support--along the lines of "Trump abstains from drinking alcohol and claims to never drink a drop" or words to that effect--and I don't mind a note (like, maybe in a note) on the "little cup of wine with the cracker" (I actually don't even believe that--not that he drinks the wine there, and not that he goes to church either). These are simply frequently mentioned things and they matter. Oh, Melanie's--sure, that's fine, except for that I don't like the "because": he may have given that as a reason, but it is unlikely that he never started because his brother advised him so. A period will do just as well as that "because". Drmies (talk) 02:50, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - No change needed and this seems WP:OR creative writing that is not a match to sources. Just follow the cites. The language of the cites is stating it as fact he does not drink, not just phrasing it as a claim by Presidents Trumps testimony. The cites have "no past or present use of alcohol" (Time), and "no alcohol" (People). We could also go to BBC.com Teetotal Trump, or back in 2011 at Forbes.com Donald Trump and Nine Other Teetotalling Moguls. It's consistent with his saying it way back in Art of the Deal ("I don't drink." pg 96), or recently by Ivana's book Raising Trump about first meeting him "surprised that Donald didn't drink". Unless a quote from him is being inserted, it would be wrong to have a 'Trump has said'. The existing phrasing "does not drink alcohol except occasional wine, such as at communion" is fine. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:50, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
• Proposed revision: Mark makes a very good point about the sources. Sources do not say "Trump says he doesn't drink"; they say "Trump doesn't drink". And I have not seen any sources casting doubt on his claim. With that in mind, I would propose an alternate version of my sentence, below. I would like to retain the comment he frequently makes attributing his abstinence to his brother's advice. The "communion" reference is directly attributable to him, but it was a one-off comment that no other source has picked up or made much of a point of, and I think it should be left out. I still prefer the CNN reference over the two currently in the article.

Alternate version 1: Trump does not drink alcohol; he says this is because he was advised not to by his older brother, Fred Trump Jr., an alcoholic who died in 1981 at age 43.

Sources

Thoughts? --MelanieN (talk) 16:48, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support either. Both are much better than the current unencyclopedic "watching his older brother Fred Jr. suffer from alcoholism". wumbolo ^^^ 18:10, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
• Keep prior content - Better sources and if it isn't broke, why make more work here. Still see no reason to change "Trump does not drink alcohol except occasional wine, such as at communion. This decision arose in part from watching his older brother Fred Jr. suffer from alcoholism that contributed to his early death in 1981". That has minor advantages in long-standing stability, broader cites (Time, CNN, People, and NYT), and that cites are WP:SECONDARY. The CNN piece cited above is short and just one cite, and is showing a side-remark from Trump in his speech, which is not as deliberate a communication and is PRIMARY. So WP:BESTSOURCES would favor the existing cites. (Actually, I suspect WEIGHT of coverage likely is at 'because of his brother', instead 'says because of his brother' since it just seems like there are always going to be more journalists commenting on him being a teetotaler than there are speeches where he mentions it and gets quoted.) Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:10, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - If we have to have something, I would prefer just having "Trump does not drink alcohol." I am not in favor of having biographical details about his brother in this article. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:17, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Simpler version

Taking into account Melanie's proposal and comments wishing for fewer details about Trump's brother, I would suggest this simplified version:

Trump does not drink alcohol, a reaction to his elder brother's chronic alcoholism and early death.

How do you like it? — JFG ^talk 23:22, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I'd be OK with that. --MelanieN (talk) 18:03, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Looks good to me. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:25, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

That seems to have a MOS:EGG problem. wumbolo ^^^ 13:09, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't think so; it is pretty clear what "his elder brother" would link to, i.e the page on Trump's elder brother, Fred Trump. Something like "his elder brother" would be problematic Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

That's correct. Consistent with his 2017 inauguration, his political positions, his presidency, and so on. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:59, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Barring objections, I will insert this version into the article within a couple days. — JFG ^talk 12:42, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done — JFG ^talk 12:43, 10 October 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.

Critical analyses of his business career

I propose to remove this paragraph from the "Wealth" section. (It has been there a long time so it can only be removed by consensus.)

A 2016 analysis of Trump's business career in The Economist concluded that his performance since 1985 had been "mediocre compared with the stock market and property in New York."[97] A subsequent analysis in The Washington Post similarly noted that Trump's estimated net worth of $100 million in 1978 would have increased to $6 billion by 2016 if he had invested it in a typical retirement fund, and concluded that "Trump is a mix of braggadocio, business failures, and real success."[98]

This looks like a couple of cherry-picked (both negative) evaluations, both of them undertaken after he became a serious presidential candidate. I really don't see the value of quoting these two critiques of his business career. Let's just show the facts, to the extent that we know them. --MelanieN (talk) 18:26, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I would support deleting this dated paragraph, especially now that the Wealth section was expanded due to the recent New York Times piece. — JFG ^talk 00:44, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not so keen on removing this entirely. It's an oft-repeated analysis of the performance of Trump's portfolio of business. Perhaps it could be summarized without the need to rely on excessive quotes.- MrX 🖋 01:09, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree with MrX. I also don't think these are particularly cherry picked. I searched for "Trump business career analysis", the first WP:RS result is the WaPo link, and other RS analysis I was able to find are a negative one from fortune, a negative one in newsweek, and a negative one in the National Review, and then the Economist's analysis. A google search is hardly definitive or anything, but it seems to me that it is hardly cherry-picked analysis and that most analysis of Trump's business career is negative (and that should be reflected here per WP:NPOV; his performance being "mediocre compared with the stock market and property in New York" is as much fact, a fact that gives context to the other facts we present of his business career) Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:37, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

The comparison of Trump's fortune to average economic performance of the stock market would make anybody look mediocre. Put in terms of more mundane sums of money, the sources state that if you invested $10,000 in 1978 and held onto the funds untouched, you would have a $600,000 nest egg by 2016. It's not specific to Trump, therefore it's not encyclopedic for his biography. Such observations are perhaps more appropriate in articles about economic growth, the stock market, and investment strategies. Trump is no Warren Buffett, so what? The ups and downs of his actual life and business ventures are what readers need to know. The only part of this paragraph that specifically addresses Trump is the one quote that says "Trump is a mix of braggadocio, business failures, and real success." I'd support keeping that alone, duly attributed to the Post of course. — JFG ^talk 08:35, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Respectfully, JFG, your last post entangles the content analysis with your own WP:Original research regarding the "soundness" of the statements made in those reliable sources, and you must be aware that such independent analysis is not relevant or useful in a content determination. Candidly, we just don't care if the math and logic employed by the WP:RS do not add up to you, under your personal analysis. Indeed, under policy we are not even allowed to consider it. And I say this despite the fact that I happen to agree with you (quite strongly, in fact) that said analysis is framed and presented in a pretty ham-fisted manner, by using that retirement fund device (retirement funds do not scale and operate under the same constraints as real estate investment and high finance for very basic economic reasons). Nevertheless, the statements are clearly quoted and attributed, and readers can decide to accept them at face value or follow up on them and question their analysis if they so wish. But we can't excise content just because you or I (or any other editor) are not convinced the source is right or because it, according to our individual analysis, applies incorrect empirical metrics when arriving at their conclusions. Excluding content based on such an analysis would involve substantial WP:OR.

Now if you can find sources which directly cast doubt on the analysis undertaken by those RS (or in the alternative, you find RS which present a different story of the subject's business fortunes) you may, of course, add them to present the span of perspectives on the topic (provided, of course, that they too are fully attributed). What we can't do is use our own analysis as a reason to "invalidate" the statements of reliable sources, illogical as they may seem to us. Nor are these the only sources out there questioning Trump's business record. The fact that so many exist is not at all surprising, given that Trump used claims about his business acumen to bootstrap his presidential run, often quite literally claiming that he has one of the "greatest business minds in existence" (if not the greatest, as if you could ever quantify such an absolute position) and that he could replicate his track record of "overwhelming success" on the national scale. And no, I am not now saying that we should present evidence to the contrary just to fact check his claims; that would not be a neutral approach to the content. I'm saying that his constant boasts in this area have led others to do just that for their own reasons (be they political or journalistic) and that these analyses now have significant enough WP:WEIGHT that some of them are bound to be discussed here.

But let's suppose for the moment that we go out on an WP:IAR limb and put WP:OR to the side, and we remove the first part of the statement attributed to the Washington post, because we feel it is a clumsy analysis (and yes, again, we are in agreement that it is). That still leaves the first sentence regarding the statements sourced from The Economist. Why do you find that sentence inappropriate? Snow ^{let's rap} 03:42, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Dear Snow Rise, I am not advocating to insert any original research into the article, and contrary to the thoughts you seem to be assigning to me, I'm in full agreement with the source's "math and logic"; I was only explaining to our fellow editors on the talk page that there is nothing exceptional about the Post's claim that investing in the stock market or real estate could yield good financial returns if left steady over 40 years (although, as you correctly note, investing on the scale of Trump's fortune would not work the same as for you and me). Such discourse is allowed and useful on the talk page, where we all exercise editorial judgment to evaluate relevancy, neutrality and due weight of various sources. It is my opinion as an encyclopedist that this particular comparison is neither very relevant to Trump's biography nor especially weighty, as few sources have picked up on it.

Seen from another angle, the Economist's article is actually much more nuanced than the cherry-picked quote calling his financial performance "mediocre", as it mentions historical rises and falls of Trump's fortunes alongside the real estate market: he bet big, won big, and lost big. Therefore I believe we should dispense with opinion, and let readers decide for themselves whether Trump's financial saga is heroic, pompous, average or fraudulent. — JFG ^talk 15:51, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I see; in that case, do you have a proposal for how we can summarize the conclusions from the The Economist source more neutrally. Having read through the entirety of that source, I would agree that it is indeed a nuanced piece and conservative in its claims, noting that some details of Trump's finances (and thus the ultimate aggregate "success" of his business ventures) are somewhat unclear and open to debate. But the thing is, when a investigative journalistic source does make that kind of meandering analysis, with no central direction in its conclusions, it doesn't necessarily mean that individual statements presented within the article are not in themselves relevance and appropriate for inclusion; that's not generally considered cherry-picking, if the information is presented neutrally. However, re-reviewing the article, I have to agree that if we use just that one isolated bit, it could definitely be framed more neutrally; while everything in that sentence is technically accurate, the overall effect is to suggest that the statement is the general conclusion of that piece--in reality, the piece ends by concluding that "the jury is still out on Mr. Trump's business career".

That is not, of course, directly in conflict with the "mediocre" statement before; both can easily be true at once and accurate reflections of the conclusions of the source. However, revising that statement to make it clear that comparing Trump's successes against the average results in the stock market and New York real estate (whatever that means, it's a little vague) is just one metric that the source uses to evaluate his successfulness, could make the statement more neutral and faithful to the source. Alternatively, as I opened this post my saying, we could try to work out a summary of the source without a quote, partial or otherwise. But again, the piece is so back and forth, I can't imagine what such a statement would look like, if we were trying to be certain it was meaningful and clear to the reader. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:56, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I would simply refrain from inserting any subjective evaluation of Trump's business performance, or a comparison to other metrics. Just erase the paragraph, as initially suggested by MelanieN. — JFG ^talk 00:12, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Birtherism in the lede

Should the following text be added to the lede:

• Trump first stirred controversy in Republican politics over his promotion of birther conspiracy theories, alleging that President Barack Obama was not born in the United States. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:10, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

The following sources can be used (all peer-reviewed academic sources):

• Alan Abramowitz. 2018. The Great Alignment: Race, Party Transformation, and the Rise of Donald Trump. Yale University Press. Quote: "“He made his first big splash in Republican politics in 2011 as the most prominent promoter of the conspiracy theory known as birtherism—the patently false claim that Barack Obama, the nation’s first African-American president, was born not in Hawaii but in Africa and was therefore ineligible to serve as president."
• Michael Tesler. 2018. Islamophobia in the 2016 Election. The Journal of Race, Ethnicity, and Politics. Quote: "Donald Trump had rallied these Americans in the past by questioning President Obama's citizenship. Beliefs about Obama's birthplace and religion were both strong correlates of Republicans’ support for Trump in April 2011 when he was the face of the “birther movement”"
• Theda Skocpol and Vanessa Williamson. 2011. The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism. Oxford University Press. Quote: "Stoked by demagogues like Donald Trump, the claim about President Obama’s otherness and illegitimacy reached its apogee in “Birther- ist” claims that Obama was not really born in the United States."
• Julia Azari and Marc J. Hetherington. 2016. Back to the Future? What the Politics of the Late Nineteenth Century Can Tell Us about the 2016 Election. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. Quote: "Donald Trump has perhaps deepened racial divisions even further. His bona fides on the issue have been clear for years. recall that he was a central figure in the “birther” movement, a group that actively questioned the authenticity of President Obama’s birth certificate, insisting that he was born in kenya, which would make him ineligible to be president."
• Zelizer, Julian (ed.). 2018. The Presidency of Barack Obama: A First Historical Assessment. Princeton University Press. Quote: "In 2011, Donald Trump, in one of his first political interventions, jumped aboard the birthers’ bandwagon, alleging that “there’s something on that birth certificate that he [Obama] doesn’t like."
• John Sides, Michael Tesler, Lynn Vavreck. 2018. Identity Crisis: The 2016 Presidential Campaign and the Battle for the Meaning of America. Princeton University Press. Quote: "As Trump elevated his political profile during the Obama administration, racially charged rhetoric was central. He rekindled the long-discredited claim that Obama was not a native American citizen and became a virtual spokesperson for the “birther” movement. The strategy worked: when Trump flirted with running for president in 2011, his popularity was concentrated among the sizable share of Republicans who thought that President Obama was foreign born or a Muslim or both."

Please indicate whether you support or oppose something similar to the above text, along with your reasoning. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:10, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

For background, here is the recent discussion from August 2018: Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive 91#Birtherism in the lede? — JFG ^talk 14:57, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• no - clearly as per MOS:LEAD Govindaharihari (talk) 12:30, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose – Undue weight. Also, it would be better to try a simple suggestion and discussion thread before jumping into an RfC process. — JFG ^talk 13:19, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

• [6] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:21, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Looks like your proposal didn't get consensus then; let's see what happens now. I'll update the RfC header to point readers to the August discussion. — JFG ^talk 14:56, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. Insignificant for lede - was less significant than his reality TV and other activities at the time, and definitely insignificant in relation to being elected. The "firstness" might also have issues (certainly first in the background to the 2016 cycle - but Trump has had various political dabblings on the local and natiin onal level dating back to the 80s).Icewhiz (talk) 16:32, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

It's weird how all these peer-reviewed assessments by political scientists and historians emphasize the birtherism as an initial stepping stone when Trump allegedly had all kinds of noteworthy "political dabblings"... do you think all those political scientists and historians missed this? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:23, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

It's really not appropriate or helpful to be passive aggressive/sarcastic when attempting to counter someone else's policy argument. Just make your WEIGHT/RS argument (which in this case is a legitimate underlying point) without the rhetorical theatrics. That said, I do agree with the point you are striking at: what matters is what the sources say, not the idiosyncratic analysis of our editors here as to what was an "important" event in Trump's story. However, Icewhiz is not wrong that Trump's political (and indeed, specifically presidential) ambitions began decades before the birtherism nutbaggery. What possibly saves the statement as accurate is that it specifically mentions this was the beginning of Trump making waves in Republican politics; prior to Trump's jumping on the anti-Obama bandwagon as part of the series of political riffs that led to his successful 2016 campaign, he had not been seen as a friend to the ideals of the right. That re-branding and re-orienting of himself as a conservative stalwart and an anti-establishment ideologue very much did begin with the birtherism claims--or so our reliable sources which cover that part of his story overwhelmingly say, on the balance.

Now the flip side of that point is that some may reasonably say that this nuance is not clearly supplied by that one word "republican", which I think is a legitimate complaint and one of the reasons I think your specific proposed wording is less than ideal, even if I agree with the underlying weight argument that the birtherism advocacy is of profound importance to the Trump story and more than DUE for the lead, if we can find the right wording. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:47, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure at all the quotes above support the "firstness" here (they certainly support this was of some significance - but we're questioning lede inclusion here) - Abramowitz says "first big splash" (so - prior "small splashes" not excluded) and Zelizer says "one of his first political interventions" (so - one of a few). It is easy to source that Trump ran full-page political ads in 1987, and that he was involved in the abortive Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2000 - so stating "first" unequivocally is possibly not factual. Icewhiz (talk) 11:40, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

References

• Support the idea, but oppose the wording on the basis the sentence is awkward to parse. Recommend abandoning the RfC immediately in favor of a simple discussion (per JFG). -- Scjessey (talk) 17:49, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose The text material is enough; do not mention it in the lede. My oppose applies no matter how the material is worded. And JFG is correct: This should not be an RFC. Please convert it from an RfC to a normal talk page discussion. Per WP:RFC: Before using the RfC process to get opinions from outside editors, it's often faster and more effective to thoroughly discuss the matter with any other parties on the related talk page. Editors are normally expected to make a reasonable attempt at working out their disputes before seeking help from others. If you are able to come to a consensus or have your questions answered through discussion with other editors, then there is no need to start an RfC. --MelanieN (talk) 17:57, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

• I started a discussion 6 weeks ago. Like most discussions on this talk page, it devolved into forum debates. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:23, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support - Most political science and history treatments of Trump's involvement in politics notes that the birtherism is an important and noteworthy initial stepping stone for Trump, bringing him great prominence. If this were to be added to the lede, it would be the most well-sourced material in this entire article, and the ONLY material in the lede or the article that has been shown to be considered important by political scientists and historians. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:23, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support per WP:DUE. Very relevant to Trump's political career, much more so than reality TV, for example. Trump's current main claim to notability is being a politician, not a reality TV star, so this inclusion is appropriate. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:14, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - Undue weight in my view for the lede itself. Not a significantly major event in Trump's life and the text in the main body of the article is sufficient in my opinion. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 23:07, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
• OPPOSE - this was recently rejected in archive 91. Not a large part of the article so does not fit WP:LEAD. Also, think not a lot of external WEIGHT compared to other matters, and finally just seems to not have an enduring effect in his life. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:06, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

That's not even a remotely accurate representation of what WP:LEAD says about this kind of analysis. Here's what the relevant section of WP:LEADREL (WP:Lead_section#Relative_emphasis) actually says regarding such matters:

"According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources. This is true for both the lead and the body of the article. If there is a difference in emphasis between the two, editors should seek to resolve the discrepancy. Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article, although not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text. Exceptions include specific facts such as quotations, examples, birth dates, taxonomic names, case numbers, and titles. This admonition should not be taken as a reason to exclude information from the lead, but rather to harmonize coverage in the lead with material in the body of the article." (emphasis added)

Nowhere does WP:LEAD say that "no topic can be covered in the lead unless it is discussed in X number of kilobytes in the main body of the article." And indeed, it would have been a pretty dumb and shortsighted standard for our editorial community to adopt, had it done so: the importance of a topic in reliable sources very rarely maps 1:1 with how much real estate it ultimately takes up in some version of an article. Some topics take up relatively little space in an article because they are relatively straight-forward and more prone to a concise description in plain terms than some other topics. The length of coverage in an article is not in itself determinative of its importance; that measurement is rather made--as a matter of very plain, explicit, and long-standing community consensus--through a WP:WEIGHT analysis, and by fidelity with the sources generally.

Such is the analysis here: it doesn't take us very much space to note that Trump was the most significant proponent of the birther conspiracy theory for years and repeatedly asserted claims to have proof supporting it. But that very straight-forward statement does not transform the significance which the WP:Reliable sources attribute to that part of the of the Trump story. Or at least that's a reasonable argument. We can always look at the number of cites and depth of coverage to debate the finer points here, but we need to at least be starting from an accurate reading of the relevant policy and how such matters are actually decided on this project (as a faithful representation of the sources, not an arbitrary measure of how many sentences the topic occupies in the article). Snow ^{let's rap} 06:33, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

What on earth is he ranting on about ? I said

(1) This was recently rejected in archive 91 as the most recent;

(2) This does not fit WP:LEAD - it does not fit the guidance of what lead is supposed to do -- to intro the article and summarize its most important contents, as given at the WP:LEAD marker. (And to not be a news-style lead or "lede" paragraph.) No mention of LEADREL though I note it does not fit well there either, as not harmonizing relative size in lead and body;

(3) Not a lot of external WP:WEIGHT compared to other topics - simple fact of the 6 weeks he spent in 2011 did not get much coverage at the time or since other than passing criticism afterwards that he was involved

(4) Not an enduring effect in his life - It's been mentioned as just 6 weeks in 2011 that he avoids ever since, and gotten a place in the article but is just not a major part of his activities or life even during those 6 weeks, and not a significant effect on his life.

Just not LEAD material. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:38, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Mark, since you've chosen to characterize my response to your arguments as "ranting" (I assume that your reference to a "he" is me, though I am not sure why you assume my gender as such), I will allow myself to be perfectly blunt about a habit of yours I have observed: you have a pronounced proclivity (basically everywhere I have seen you contribute, but on this talk page in particular) of invoking a policy through a link as if just using the shorthand gives credence to your position, even though a reading of the actual policy's wording reveals that is says something very different indeed. So let's look at each of your points above, in turn:

"(1) This was recently rejected in archive 91 as the most recent;"

Great. Are you aware that consensus can change? Notably that last discussion was not an RfC soliciting the broader input of the community and actually, it very clearly did not arrive at an established consensus "rejecting" the proposal, as you boldly but quite inaccurately claim. Meanwhile this RfC already has several times the number of participants, and will benefit from a formal close. It therefore, under every relevant policy, stands as the current consensus (or rather will if it resolves with a clear consensus).

"(2) This does not fit WP:LEAD - it does not fit the guidance of what lead is supposed to do -- to intro the article and summarize its most important contents, as given at the WP:LEAD marker. (And to not be a news-style lead or "lede" paragraph.) No mention of LEADREL though I note it does not fit well there either, as not harmonizing relative size in lead and body;"

You seem to be unaware that MOS:LEADREL is actually a section of WP:LEAD, not an additional policy. It's specifically the portion of that policy which tells how to judge the WP:WEIGHT of relative elements within an article and their corresponding fitness for the lead--and it makes clear that this fitness is not established by looking at how much real estate the topic takes up in the article (the notion you are advancing above), but rather the weight it is ascribed in reliable sources, even if it is a very simple fact that is very quickly summarized in the article body itself. This is exactly the reason I quoted it in its entirety for you above. But this is the perfect example of how you seem to see what you want to see in policy, because nowhere does it say that you "harmonize size" of coverage between the lead and main body; it says the lead should reflect vital facts relative to weight they have been given in the sources, not the length of characters that are required to describe those facts in the main body of our own article. My last post already explained the numerous reasons why the community has never endorsed such an arbitrary approach.

"(3) Not a lot of external WP:WEIGHT compared to other topics - simple fact of the 6 weeks he spent in 2011 did not get much coverage at the time or since other than passing criticism afterwards that he was involved;"

Candidly, I don't think you are truly very well informed on this controversy if you genuinely believe that Trump only made this claim for "six weeks in 2011" and that it got little press. Trump made these claims repeatedly over a course of more than five years (please see Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories#Donald_Trump and the following sources [7][8][9][10] for examples), and on several occasions even claimed to be privy to insider evidence that supported his assertions, during which time the claims were criticized, debunked, and otherwise discussed in literally hundreds of WP:reliable sources. Even more significant, reliable sources summarizing that coverage routinely frame this activity as a turning point for Trump's political fortunes. I do not believe you bring anything remotely approaching WP:Neutral point of view or due diligence in research when it comes to your approach to these easily discoverable sources.

"(4) Not an enduring effect in his life - It's been mentioned as just 6 weeks in 2011 that he avoids ever since, and gotten a place in the article but is just not a major part of his activities or life even during those 6 weeks, and not a significant effect on his life."

Please review WP:Original research; policy forbids us from using our idiosyncratic notions of what is "important" to decide what content (lead content included) should look like. Rather we faithfully report what reliable sources say about a matter, and when that matter involves controversy, we cover the span of major opinions about it, but we do not just try to minimize the underlying issues just because some of our editors are of the opinion that the controversy is overblown and should never have existed. That's blatant OR.

Look, editors operating from good faith can have reasonable differences of opinion about the WP:WEIGHT of this topic and therefore engage in a reasonable debate about whether it belongs in the lead. And if this discussion does lead to a firm consensus, we should accept that result even if it seems inaccurate to us. But that discussion cannot proceed on the basis of your arguments, because you are either unaware of, or purposefully misrepresenting the basic facts (as amply verified in mountains of sources) and the language of the relevant policies, apparently in favour of alternative views which conform to your previously formed opinions--and frankly, it's a pattern. "Rant" over; cheers yourself. Snow ^{let's rap} 08:25, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Snow - lots of stuff there, but unless you have a question of what I meant or speak to my points it just seems tangential ranting. Again my input was the points: 1 - this topic has been discussed and rejected repeatedly before — as recently as August. 2 - it does not fit the main goals for LEAD (i.e. summarize the major parts of article. 3 - it simply has relatively little WEIGHT coverage compared to other topics (e.g. sex tapes or immigrant families). 4 - and it just does not seem to have had an enduring effect in his life. I.e this is supposed to be his bio story of his life, and this is just not a big deal in his life.

Now for anything other than you need my meaning of these explained or have something on these specific points, please make it as your own input elsewhere. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:24, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

• Reluctantly support I was hesitant to support, but Trump's involvement in birtherism genuinely is one of the first well-known examples of him dabbling in US politics, and now that politics are what he's known for this is actually very relevant. He's not just "that rich guy from The Celebrity Apprentice" anymore, so his political track record is actually important now. After all, part of MOS:LEAD is quote "establishing context" and "including any prominent controversies." The short single sentence proposed would not be undue. (though for obvious reasons, much more than that would be) Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 07:11, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support, in principle, per my two responses above. I certainly think the precise wording needs some improvement, but this is the genesis of Trump's turn to (and initial success with) the right of American politics, which delivered him into the single most powerful political office in existence, so yes, it's worthy of brief mention in the lead as a significant milestone in his political fortunes. Or more to the point, this is how WP:reliable sources view the matter. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:19, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support Well sourced and relevant. Its one of the things he was well known for in politics before truly running. Many others have hit on that and many other relevant reasons to include and I agree. ContentEditman (talk) 00:40, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Undue weight for the lead. The mention in the body is enough, perhaps at Racial views of Donald Trump it would be appropriate just not here. PackMecEng (talk) 00:50, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - per WP:NPOV, specifically undue weight, because it doesn't fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources. Trump said in September 2016 - "President Barack Obama was born in the United States. Period" - which was widely reported on - (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20). This viewpoint was also expressed in three books - (Made in America: The Annotated Donald J. Trump - American Nightmare: Donald Trump, Media Spectacle and Authoritarian Populism - Enemies of the State: The Radical Right in America from FDR to Trump), and two journal articles. Michael Tesler, the author and co-author of 2 of the sources cited above, also used this article he wrote for the WaPo as a reference in 2 of the aforementioned academic sources cited, where he specifically mentions that Trump said Obama was born in the US. It's cherrypicking and editorializing to include one significant view while excluding the other significant viewpoint. Leave it out of the lead, the text in the main body of the article is sufficient. Isaidnoway (talk) 03:52, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

• His later dismissal of birtherism, false claims that Hillary started the birther movement, and later reiteration of birther conspiracy theories in private[11] are not notable enough for the lede. The lede is not where we trace Trump's involvement with the birther movement. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:56, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Totally agree that the lede is not where we should trace Trump's involvement with the birther movement, which is why I !voted oppose. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:33, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support multi-year campaign which led to the presidential election clearly needs mentioning, though perhaps not worded as proposed. zzz (talk) 16:12, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
• No(Summoned by bot) Doesn't belong in the lead, perhaps in the lede of Political positions of Donald Trump ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:32, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Coverage was and remains both extensive and high-profile, to the point where it still comes up fairly regularly concerning him. Many sources go so far as to cite it as a key reason why he was eventually elected president. A sentence in the lead for it is clearly WP:DUE. --Aquillion (talk) 01:39, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose – Undue weight to already over-long lede; agree it could go into intro section on politics Aboudaqn (talk) 14:13, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Mention remarks as sexist in lede

More than "racial" remarks, I would note his remarks as "sexist" against women (such as mocking women who complain or speak against him; re Senator Elizabeth Warren (D) as Pocohontas etc.), which I think is easier to cite, and add into the lede section. -Wikid77 (talk) 04:47, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Trump mocks men and women equally, as evidenced for instance in List of nicknames used by Donald Trump. — JFG ^talk 12:38, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

In the first place, we don't put things in the lede that are not already established in the text. In the second place, there has been much more coverage about his racial attitudes (not just nicknames or mockery) than about his attitudes toward women. I personally agree that his public treatment of women is sexist or misogynist (look at the way he treats women reporters compared to men), but our coverage is not determined by what we think; it's determined by what Reliable Sources say. And Reliable Sources have not focused on the woman issue as they have on the racial issue. --MelanieN (talk) 13:33, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

It's certainly a truism that we must predicate content based on the assertion of WP:reliable sources, but I wonder from where you are drawing the rather overarching conclusion that he is better known for (and received more coverage regarding) the act of belittling people on the basis of race, as opposed to gender? Do you have some sort of source or formal analysis which supports that assertion or are you just making a generalization based on your own impressionistic memory of his past conduct? There doesn't seem to be exactly a shortage of sources discussing either propensity, honestly. I could be wrong of course--one might very much outweigh the other as a matter of WP:WEIGHT--but it would be good if we could work from something a little more concrete than "I feel he is better known for X". Of course, I understand the difficulty in making strong arguments about the relative scale of discussion of this or that behaviour, because of the sheer number of sources talking about Trump (and the resulting fact that people can always cherry-pick a few sources to support an assertion in concert with the availability heuristic). So I'm not suggesting we demand a comprehensive analysis of the whole world of Trump RS. But some summary of the evidence for the position that "concerns about racial comments overwhelm those about sexist comments in the RS" would be appropriate if we are going to orient our content accordingly. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:24, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, I just did a search to see if Reliable Sources are making an issue of this. I found two articles making that explicit point, both from 2017, one from a British paper. I found a 2018 opinion piece in CNN and some news stories about Seth Myers calling him sexist. This just does not seem to be near the top of the RS agenda. --MelanieN (talk) 23:35, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

That's strange to me that you only found two sources discussing that topic, because when I did a simple google search for "Trump's history of sexist comments", I received results which seem to be in the hundreds with regard to RS discussing the accusation (in regard to both stories of specific instances, and many discussing the overall pattern): omitting the sources you already mentioned and those with only video content to be friendly to our mobile editors, here are the relevant results from just the first three pages (the results go on for many thousands of pages, of course, as is typical of any query with Trump in it, no matter how refined the search phrase): [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26]. These sources range in publication date from 2012 to as recently as the last few weeks, cover a very much larger span of time, and I've no particular reason to suspect that the RS dry up on page five or even page one hundred of the search results for that particular phrase (let alone all possible search permutations on the subject). I'm not saying that even such a large number of sources doesn't need to be balanced against the larger scope and context we are dealing with here, but I am saying the number of sources explicitly talking about Trump's history of purportedly sexist comments is orders of magnitude larger than "two or three". Snow ^{let's rap} 00:35, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

You make good points. There do seem to be a lot more sources than I realized. Well, before we can talk about putting anything like this in the lede, it would have to be in the article. A subsection could be created in the "public profile" section, comparable to what is already there for "False statements" and "Racial views". Once it is well documented and stable in the article, we could talk about putting something in the lede. As far as I can see there would not need to be discussion or consensus before putting something in the body of the article. IMO it should not just narrowly cover sexist comments, but should also include actions where documented. --MelanieN (talk) 00:44, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree, and that's part of the problem in searching for sources on this topic; the discussion of Trump's public statements in that area tend to get overshadowed by the accusations of personal misconduct that have been made against him (and discussion of the former tends to get subsumed into articles about the latter). Disentangling the two and keeping all statements neutral and in proportion will require some skilled writing. Given the balancing act of appeasing disparate editorial perspectives here, I don't imagine a very extensive section will unfold surrounding this subtopic, but I do think some discussion of specific allegations and comments which have created particularly widespread reactions would be appropriate. Honestly, I could see that content coming out to anywhere between three sentences and four paragraphs in length, but I suspect it will end up much towards the smaller end of that scale. Anyway, as you say, once that content has taken shape, we will be in a better position to evaluate if the subject is appropriate to the lead. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:39, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

JFG - you're right, not LEAD, not BLP, but ... somewhere? Yes Trump seems an equal opportunity insulter judging from the Trump Twitter Archive and general viewed Google. And this is not WP:LEAD suitable for a summary of his BLP life. I'd also hold this is not a biographical item of life decision he made or event with enduring impact to his life so this BLP is even the wrong article for it anyway. But there are still articles claiming some sexist or racist pattern in tweets exists. Wrong or not, if a claim meets WP:WEIGHT then mention of it should go somewhere, just make it attributed as claim rather than fact. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:18, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

It is already stated in the lead that many of his public statements have been controversial or false. It seems to me that "controversial" may include such things as birtherism or previous sexist comments he has made, without the need to further highlight sexist comments in the lead section, which should have a neutral encyclopedic tone. Trump is already accused of racism in the lead (or the perception of his comments and actions as racist). Hypothetically, if Trump makes comments in the future perceived by some as anti-gay or anti-transgender, would he then be accused in the lead of being racist, sexist, homophobic and transphobic? I would have no particular problem with such labels in the main body of the article, if reliable sources backed them up. But it seems to me not needed in the lead, when it's already stated that Trump has made controversial or false comments and it's important for the lead to have a neutral tone. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 22:30, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Mention blocked by court rulings in lede

Beyond the protests, expand lede section to note policies have been delayed or blocked by numerous court rulings, which I think there are many sources to cite the volume of court rulings to oppose Trump. Otherwise, the protests seem less significant as everyone gets a protest of some sort. -Wikid77 (talk) 04:54, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

This is mentioned in the lede with regards to the travel ban. Which other policy actions would you like to see there? Is this not better suited to the Presidency of Donald Trump article? — JFG ^talk 12:40, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Wikid77 - Do you have a specific one you feel as important as the things already in LEAD ? The WP:LEAD says the top should be a summary of the article, and I'm not aware of any court events in the article (or outside) with that level of prominence. This might fit better at the Presidency article anyway, but what exactly are you thinking of ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:26, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Removal of content

Perhaps JFG can expand in this removal of content a bit? Does JFG have access to the article in question, or was the rationale given in the edit summary referring to the text available in the abstract? This is a significant change of content that surely requires more discussion. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:46, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I've read the source, and it did not support the sentence. The quoted page 101 is the first page of the book's conclusion, called "Seven Theses on Populism", none of which mention Trump. They are essentially opinions by the author about what can be called populism and how dangerous it is. Trump is mentioned elsewhere in the book, but I could not find a passage that supports the sentence that was in the article, hence my removal. — JFG ^talk 14:56, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

This is a relatively recent insertion by ZiaLater who I'd ask if it is supported by the source anywhere? Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:18, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Actually, no. It has been in the article in it's current form since July 8, 2017 (added by Asqueladd) without challenge. That's an extraordinary enough record of stability for the edit to draw some scrutiny. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:40, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Scjessey, though the diff is confusing, JFG did not remove that sentence attributed to Barkun Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:10, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

@JFG: @Scjessey: Yes, the quoted source—not a book but a peer-reviewed article published in Terrorism and Political Violence—(Barkun, 2017, page 437) mentions the Trump Campaign (it basically entails the entire article); 1st paragraph:

"The 2016 election was notable for many things, but one feature that distinguished it along with the early days of the Trump presidency was the extraordinary role played by fringe elements, individuals, and ideas. By the ‘‘fringe,’’ I mean ideas, beliefs, and organizations that have been ignored, rejected, marginalized, or that have voluntarily separated themselves from the dominant society. Virtually by definition, these are outsiders, made up of those systematically excluded from access to any influence on mainstream cultural and political life. Remarkably, the Trump campaign and the administration that followed brought this pariah realm into the mainstream, with yet unclear implications for the likelihood of violence later on."

— Barkun (2017, p. 437).

--Asqueladd (talk) 15:52, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

References

@Asqueladd: The Barkun source is not in dispute, and the sentence it supports was left untouched. We were talking about the What is Populism book by Jan-Werner Müller, and the sentence I removed stated Acts of populism that proved successful for Trump included recognition of some Americans who felt "anger" towards cultural changes, sexual liberty and the potential of white Americans–especially white Protestants–becoming a minority group in the United States. That reads like an opinion essay, and is absolutely not what the cited source said. — JFG ^talk 16:07, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

@JFG: Oh, I was "summoned" and I replied on the presumption that the verifiability of the bit I added was disputed. Thanks and have a nice day.--Asqueladd (talk) 16:11, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

No worries. — JFG ^talk 16:18, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh, jeez. Galobtter is absolutely correct - I misread the diff. Sorry, JFG and everyone else who has participated in this thread. My bad.

Simon goes and stands in the corner with shame on his face. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:02, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

@JFG: The Jan-Werner Müller quote states:

"It is with the rise of the Tea Party and Donald Trump’s astounding success in 2015–16 that populism as understood in this book has really become of major importance in American politics. Clearly, 'anger' has played a role, but as noted earlier, 'anger' is not by itself much of an explanation of anything. The reasons for that anger have something to do with a sense that the country is changing  culturally in ways deeply objectionable to a certain percentage of American citizens: there is the increasing influence of, broadly speaking, social-sexual liberal values (same-sex marriage, etc.) and also concerns about the United States becoming a 'majority-minority country,' in which traditional images of 'the real people'—white Protestants, that is—have less and less purchase on social reality."

I apologize if this was misinterpreted, but the way this was presented by the author seemed to be that successful populism used by the Tea Party and Donald Trump was based off of "anger". The "anger" is then explained by the author.----ZiaLater (talk) 22:39, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

@Neutrality:, @K.e.coffman: Seeing that you were involved in the discussion below, what do you think of this discussion?----ZiaLater (talk) 04:49, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

@ZiaLater: Thanks for finding the relevant excerpt from the book. Looks like the opinion of the author, and he is not a particularly notable analyst. Lacks enough weight to include. There have been myriads of reasons advanced by various people to explain Trump's election (and a myriad more to explain why he shouldn't have been elected!) — JFG ^talk 00:08, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

@ZiaLater: @JFG:"and he is not a particularly notable analyst". Jan Werner Muller is one of the leading non-laclauian scholars of populism. To the extent the use of the source relates to Populism he is heavily relevant. There may be another issues with the citation (I don't know about the whole context but from the literal citation above it may look a synthy use of a somewhat vague passage), but the author is indeed relevant.--Asqueladd (talk) 00:30, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

@Asqueladd: Müller is certainly a respected author with regards to populism in general, although as a German, he has focused mostly on European countries. He is not particularly notable with regards to American politics, and indeed he is mostly citing Trump as an example of a populist leader, rather than attempting to explain Trump's success in detail. In any case, the sentence I removed was definitely over-interpreting the source, which itself was essentially opinion. — JFG ^talk 10:45, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Removal of three peer-reviewed studies with the claim "This is opinion"

The editor JFG removed peer-reviewed academic research with the assertion "This is opinion. Please get consensus."[27]. This text should be restored immediately. Per the RS guidelines, peer-reviewed publications are usually the best sources,[28] and they are absolutely not "opinion". The publications in question are by recognized experts and published in the best academic presses (Princeton University Press, Yale University Press)[29]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:21, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

The sentence is attributed to "Political scientists and historians", and the sentence doesn't seem particularly like an opinion, so I'd like to know what part of the edit JFG thinks is opinion Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:26, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

First, the start of the paragraph was changed from calling Trump "a major proponent of "birther" conspiracy theories" to "the most prominent proponent" of such. That is most certainly opinion, which we cannot state as fact in wikivoice. Second, regarding the added sentence citing Princeton political scientists, stating that "Trump's support among Republicans correlated with beliefs that President Obama was foreign born or a Muslim or both" is a highly partisan charge that should at a minimum get consensus prior to insertion. This is especially important to lay out for debate because the OP recently started an RfC on the same subject. — JFG ^talk 16:41, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

We might well find a consensus of Reliable Sources saying that he was the "most prominent" proponent; I'll leave that up to the research and discussion here. But we absolutely should not use the "correlated with" sentence, because it implies something that cannot be proven. "Correlated with" means absolutely nothing, because there is no way to tell if there is any relation at all, and if so, which one is the cause and which the effect, or if some third thing is the cause of both. "Correlated with" is one of the most common, and notorious, ways to lie with statistics. See Spurious Correlations. --MelanieN (talk) 21:49, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

This seems like a knee jerk reaction to hearing the term correlation. No causal claim is being made in the text (i.e. birthers supported Trump because he was a birther or that Trump gained support because he was a birther). The fact that his support was concentrated among those who held Obama birther/Muslim beliefs is noteworthy, and no causality has to be implied or inferred for it to be notable. Which is why John Sides, Lynn Vavreck and Michael Tesler (all of whom have published quant studies and survey research in the top political science journals) mention this in the first few pages of their peer-reviewed book on the 2016 election published in one of the best academic presses and immediately after they note that Trump was the lead birther. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:38, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

his support was concentrated among those who held Obama birther/Muslim beliefs See, this is exactly why we must not use "correlation" material in the article. You are saying that his support was "concentrated among those who held" that belief, as if they constituted a majority of his support. The data do not suggest that at all. The inverse is more likely - that a majority of birthers were Trump supporters, not that a majority of Trump supporters were birthers. Correlation is so misleading and so easy to misinterpret that we absolutely should not mention it here.--MelanieN (talk) 04:11, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

To me this seems a rather WP:ORy reason to exclude. If that correlations are easy to misinterpret or some point like that is made in those books written by experts who certainly know that one can lie with statistics, then exclude certainly, but if not, then this, at-least, isn't a reason to exclude.

Here's a washingtonpost article that makes the same point. From that data, it seems to me that both majority of birthers were Trump supporters and majority of Trump supporters are birthers largely because the majority of the republicans are birthers. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:02, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Possibly we could say a version of what that article says: "Birtherism was why so many Republicans liked Trump in the first place." No need for us to interpret the data; the source has made the interpretation. No need for us to consider majorities or correlations. BTW, I am still open to use of the wording "most prominent proponent". And just noting for clarity - since there is also another active thread here about birtherism - we are talking here about what to say in the text section. I am still opposed to mentioning it in the lede. --MelanieN (talk) 15:30, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

My views align with MelanieN's here on pretty much each of those details, with the one exception that I think a mention of birtherism in the lead is entirely appropriate, Snow ^{let's rap} 03:33, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Its not wiki voice when we follow what reliable sources say. Here is another source that says "For years, Trump has been the most prominent proponent of the “birther” idea." https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2016/09/16/trump-finally-says-president-obama-was-born-in-the-us So that is more than well sourced and not opinion. ContentEditman (talk) 16:49, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I'd be really interested to hear which proponent of birther conspiracies is more prominent than Trump. Guy (Help!) 21:49, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

• Restore this edit: [30]. Reliably sourced and properly attributed. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:56, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: This is a discussion not a vote. Why not join the discussion? PackMecEng (talk) 02:47, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I have reviewed the discussion, and that was my recommendation. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:48, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

For... reasons? Got it, fair enough. PackMecEng (talk) 02:55, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I have provided a reason; it's immediately above, in my initial comment. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:00, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree with K.e.coffman that this material should be restored; it seems to me to be (very) well-sourced, appropriate weight, biographically significant, and so forth; indeed, these are the kind of sources we should strive to rely upon. I haven't seen anyone offering a policy-based reason to exclude. Neutrality^talk 21:26, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

"Major proponent" vs. "Most prominent proponent"

The above discussion involves several aspects of the disputed edit, and at this stage of the discussion it isn't entirely clear exactly what change is being proposed. By contrast, the disputed edit to the first sentence is a simple binary choice. We discuss birtherism in the second paragraph of the "Racial views" section. The question is: Should the first sentence of that paragraph say "Starting in 2011, Trump was a major proponent of "birther" conspiracy theories," as it now does, or should it be changed to "...was the most prominent proponent of..."? --MelanieN (talk) 19:17, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I think it is quite clear that "most prominent proponent" is the way to go. Plenty of sources support this known fact. For example, just before Trump's walk back on the issue, the Chicago Tribune said:

"For years, Trump has been the most prominent proponent of the "birther" idea. He used the issue to build his political profile, earn media attention and define his status as an "outsider" willing to challenge conventions."

-- Scjessey (talk) 21:03, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

• Agree with "most...". -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:22, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
• I lean towards "most prominent" as well, based on the general WP:WEIGHT of the sources, but honestly, either is acceptable. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:16, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:PEACOCK comes to mind. Any superlatives should be avoided, even if sources use them (and here not all sources call him the top birther). Conversely, "a major proponent" is fully supported, and places appropriate emphasis on Trump's major role in the spread of birtherism circa 2011 (although that myth apparently emerged in 2008). — JFG ^talk 00:05, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, an MoS page advising on effective prose does not supersede WP:WEIGHT, arguably the most important section of one of our pillar policies. If sufficient weight exists in sources describing Trump as the single most significant figure of this movement, then NPOV binds us to faithfully describe him as such (albeit perhaps with caution in attribution and additional "has been described as" phrasing), and WP:PEACOCK cannot abrogate that requirement. That said, I can't claim to have read every one of the hundreds or thousands of reliable sources discussing Trump and birtherism (though I have, unfortunately, had to read a good many of them) so I can't say (and I doubt any editor can) that "most" is absolutely, without question, a more faithful representation of the collective sources than "major", and I'm comfortable with either. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:06, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

The term "most prominent" is ambiguous, since it can mean either that he was the most prominent person advancing the theory or that he more prominently advanced the cause than anyone else. I think Orly Taitz received more media coverage. There were also a number of Republican politicians and right-right talk show hosts promoting the theory who were arguably more prominent than Trump. Trump's involvement became a bigger issue once he ran for office. TFD (talk) 01:09, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

All of which is WP:original research; we are required to faithfully report how WP:reliable sources describe a topic, not the description we think better reflects reality, even if we're very much convinced, as a personal matter, that our analysis is more accurate. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:12, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

There were plenty of birthers, and I've read that at some point half of America was questioning Obama's birth records. Strange but what else can you expect from politics? Just like today half of America calls Trump a puppet of Putin. This country seems to love conspiracy theories. — JFG ^talk 02:29, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

No it is not original research, it is accurately reflecting in unambiguous language what reliable sources say. The Manual of Style says, "Avoid ambiguity." Note that ambiguity may not exist in the original source, because context determines what terms mean. Here of course there is no context. Is there any reason you think ambiguous wording should be used? (Incidentally, it's easy to name drop policies and guidelines, but totally worthless if you do not explain their relevance.) TFD (talk) 20:15, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but half of America wouldn't have come to this conclusion without a prominent conspiracy promulgator. O3000 (talk) 11:24, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Just like today half of America calls Trump a puppet of Putin. This country seems to love conspiracy theories. ------ WHAT???— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.210.129.21 (talk • contribs)

"For years, Trump has been the most prominent proponent of the “birther” idea." is what sources say. Its not OR for us to use what reliable sources say, in fact its what we should do. So I would say most prominent proponent is what should be used. ContentEditman (talk) 18:31, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• Exclude - seems like we’re doing paraphrase either way rather than direct support from sources, and while I personally think “the most prominent” is a better paraphrase than “major” for only 6 weeks at the late long-form stage of it all.... I think that portrayal ( a) fails WEIGHT in having lots less actual semi-direct support, and (b) an absolute like “the most” is kind of EXTRAORDINARY and needs a LOT of support. CheersMarkbassett (talk) 14:30, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

This is a laughable rationale, Mark. First of all, if you look at my quote from the Chicago Tribune above, it is word-for-word identical - not a paraphrase at all. Secondly, how in the hell can it fail WP:WEIGHT when Trump built his entire campaign for the presidency upon his birtherism? Finally, there's TONS of support for Trump being the most prominent proponent of birtherism. Countless thousands of articles, in fact. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:48, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

@Scjessey: Trump built his entire campaign for the presidency upon his birtherism. Say what???? I thought he built his entire campaign on building The Wall™. I thought he built his entire campaign on calling opponents "Low energy Jeb", "Lyin' Ted" and "Crooked Hillary". I thought he built his entire campaign on chastising China and Mexico over trade. I thought he built his entire campaign on bashing the PC culture. I thought he built his entire campaign on supporting the police and the military. I thought he built his entire campaign on projecting a vision of putting his country first. I could go on. Whoever says his campaign was based on birtherism has not been paying attention. — JFG ^talk 18:35, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

@JFG: Nonsense. Trump hates Obama, so he threw himself into the whole "birther" bullshit and took it to a new level with fake investigations and fake claims. Once he'd attracted a suitable enough number of Obama-hating racists to his cause, he then built a campaign that would appeal to them and the rest of the deplorable horde in his cult. And serious, country first? You don't really believe that shit, do you? -- Scjessey (talk) 19:46, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

He seems to be the only one here making sense. Just calm down. PackMecEng (talk) 19:52, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Scjessey not laughable at all. WP:WEIGHT has to be a preponderance of RS so your offer of your logic of it fits is just OR, same as my own in that direction. And with an absolute “the most”, we would have to see multiple cites that literally compared by some measure and made that literal statement. Just a table showing X is not enough, it is OR for us to state conclusions the RS did not. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:17, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Peak birtherism was in 2011. Trump started his campaign in 2015, didn't say a word about Obama's citizenship until one journalist asked him if he still believed that myth. Trump replied that he did not want to discuss this again, but that he was "very proud" to have been the one harassing Obama into releasing his long-form certificate. Typical Trump bombast and taking credit for everything. That's all there is to it, really, it was a minor blip among his myriad campaign statements. I'm not into "half the electorate are racist deplorables" delusions, but knock yourself out. Nuff said. — JFG ^talk 20:08, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

?? "Peak birtherism was in 2011. Trump started his campaign in 2015."?? That gap was FILLED with Trump birtherism, ("fake investigations and fake claims", per Scjessey), with the help of Joe Arapaio, building up to the official start, in this country (in Russia he started getting help and preparing back around 2011, possibly earlier), of his campaign. Hardly a "minor blip". -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:28, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

“Filled”??? Seriously ? Have to call BS (coincidental pun there) on that. Hyperbole even in discussion has to be a bit more plausible. Primary speeches or debates are easily available - maybe could say filled with immigration, condemning trade deals, talking make America great... could say Apprentice and real estate maybe also. Birther??? Just not there let alone “filled” the space. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:48, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, 2011-2015..., there was lots of birtherism during that time (no hyperbole for that time period, which is what I'm addressing), and later, once the campaign started, it continued, but with lots of other stuff. You're right there. By then, all the birthers were rounded up and firmly his supporters, a large part of the GOP, so there was room for other stuff and it wasn't emphasized as much. No need to do it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:33, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• I am rather against most prominent just because it is a very subjective term. Yes sources use it a decent bit, they also use other terms as well. To be honest though, the birther stuff has not been that important over all. It really gets overshadowed with the last two years of controversy and accomplishment. So while I would vote against most prominent, I would not be against removing it from the lead in general and falling importance. PackMecEng (talk) 15:26, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• Exclude both. WP:PEACOCK and WP:POV come to mind. We wouldn't allow it in other, non-politically based BLPs, why is it even a discussion for this one? Seems like a BLP no-brainer to me. I'm also inclined to agree with Markbassett on this. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:36, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

LOL. I'm shocked. Shocked. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:46, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. I find it odd that strong Trump supporters are arguing to downplay his notability in any manner, especially this issue. It's what helped him grab headlines and become more notable. He's arguably more notable than God, Jesus Christ, Mohamed, Buddha, and Gandhi, all lumped together. (None of them promote birtherism, thus vacating that status for Trump.) Why so shy, especially since RS confirm this? Trump would be ashamed of you for not supporting his daily efforts at self-promotion.

Seriously, let's apply a little logic here. Can anyone here name a more prominent proponent of birtherism? No? I thought so. There is no one more prominent than Trump at just about anything. If he promotes something, that means he is automatically "the most prominent proponent" of it, and, in this case, RS actually put it into words. No need for OR or SYNTH for us to arrive at that conclusion. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:00, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Feel better now? PackMecEng (talk) 17:53, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, BullRangifer is right. Folks like Alan Keyes and Orly Taitz may have been the first to try to profit from the birther lie, but Trump turned it into a gold painted gin palace of a whopper. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:46, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

User:BullRangifer ONUS requires the statement to pony up cites, asking for disproof is ...saying you cannot do so? Otherwise... you mean “was” the most prominent, yah? Or perhaps “is the most prominent former birther” hmm? Notability, yes Trump seems by coverage more WP:NOTABLE in the U.S. and gotten more WP articlespace than any of the religious figures - or Obama, Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Washington ... or all of them combined. It is IMHO not a good/healthy thing, suggest it would help perspective to read BBC.com or CNBC or Daily Mail more often. But thats all side discussion as well as OR, not suitable for WP articles. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:29, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

New paragraph added to lede - I removed it

Today Soibangla added the following paragraph to the lede section of the article:

Trump has been known throughout his adult life to promote himself with hyperbole and falsehoods. Within six months of announcing his presidential candidacy, FactCheck.org declared him the "King of Whoppers," stating, "In the 12 years of FactCheck.org's existence, we've never seen his match." By the 20th month of his presidency, Washington Post fact checkers counted 5,000 instances of his false or misleading statements — including 125 during a single two-hour period.

Sources

Knowing that the lede in this article has been discussed literally word by word, including how many paragraphs it can have, I felt this addition without discussion was highly inappropriate. I am bringing it here to see if there is consensus to restore it - either to the lede or to the text. --MelanieN (talk) 23:47, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't see how any experienced editor could think this is a reasonable addition to the lead (or neutral enough for inclusion in a section about Trump's use of hyperbole). power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:50, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

It astonishes me that the last two paragraphs of the lede have apparently withstood extensive scrutiny and have remained here, even though they are clearly more appropriate for the presidency article rather than the BLP, whereas a paragraph that describes a core and defining aspect of the man's character, which is a well-documented and consistent thread through his entire adult life, is challenged here. This removed paragraph, or some variation thereof, should remain and one or both of the subsequent paragraphs should come out. soibangla (talk) 00:15, 15 October 2018 (UTC)