Jump to content

Talk:Donald Trump: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 671: Line 671:
* {{tq|which he has credited for economic growth as high as 2.9% in his second year}} Readers ask: "is that number better or worse than he said it would be, due to his policies?" But the edit provides no guidance. Because "he has credited," it suggests he at least hit his promised number, but actually he hasn't. Shouldn't readers know that? Of course they should.
* {{tq|which he has credited for economic growth as high as 2.9% in his second year}} Readers ask: "is that number better or worse than he said it would be, due to his policies?" But the edit provides no guidance. Because "he has credited," it suggests he at least hit his promised number, but actually he hasn't. Shouldn't readers know that? Of course they should.
:: Except that it '''did''' hit 3.1% this year, so yes the promised number was exceeded microscopically. But really, comparing back to a speech seems just a long stretch for some way to complain about good news -- whereas a proponent would point to an increasing trend during his term. I'd rather just state the fact of what it is and leave out the contortions and spincraft, thanks. Cheers [[User:Markbassett|Markbassett]] ([[User talk:Markbassett|talk]]) 22:49, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
:: Except that it '''did''' hit 3.1% this year, so yes the promised number was exceeded microscopically. But really, comparing back to a speech seems just a long stretch for some way to complain about good news -- whereas a proponent would point to an increasing trend during his term. I'd rather just state the fact of what it is and leave out the contortions and spincraft, thanks. Cheers [[User:Markbassett|Markbassett]] ([[User talk:Markbassett|talk]]) 22:49, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
::: It hit 5.1% and 4.9% in two consecutive quarters of 2014. Did Obama have 3% growth? Of course not. GDP bounces around, one quarter means nothing. [https://imgur.com/pqU80tb Here's the real data].
* {{tq|although rates of job creation and weekly earnings}} it's important to say the ''average growth rates'', or else readers may (correctly) think you're inappropriately comparing two Trump years to the four years preceding him. "Rates" can (correctly) be interpreted as an invalid comparison, while "average growth rates" makes it clear it's a valid comparison. This, and the fact that it's ''inflation-adjusted'' earnings, needs to be made explicitly clear to avoid ambiguity.
* {{tq|although rates of job creation and weekly earnings}} it's important to say the ''average growth rates'', or else readers may (correctly) think you're inappropriately comparing two Trump years to the four years preceding him. "Rates" can (correctly) be interpreted as an invalid comparison, while "average growth rates" makes it clear it's a valid comparison. This, and the fact that it's ''inflation-adjusted'' earnings, needs to be made explicitly clear to avoid ambiguity.
:: That's not the normal way the stats are given -- the unemployment is given in %, and the Jobs growth is given in thousands of jobs added (or lost). Some stories now cover that the unemployment is hitting record lows in some areas, but not seeing WEIGHT to a percentage of a percentage -- again, just state the number that is, not analysis numbers that are portraying it as a comparison or something. Cheers [[User:Markbassett|Markbassett]] ([[User talk:Markbassett|talk]]) 22:59, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
:: That's not the normal way the stats are given -- the unemployment is given in %, and the Jobs growth is given in thousands of jobs added (or lost). Some stories now cover that the unemployment is hitting record lows in some areas, but not seeing WEIGHT to a percentage of a percentage -- again, just state the number that is, not analysis numbers that are portraying it as a comparison or something. Cheers [[User:Markbassett|Markbassett]] ([[User talk:Markbassett|talk]]) 22:59, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
:::In fact, average growth rates are the way the reliable source presents the data. [[User:Soibangla|soibangla]] ([[User talk:Soibangla|talk]]) 00:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
* {{tq|the Dow Jones Industrial Average increased 25.9% during Trump's first two years in office}} Readers ask: "is that high or low? is it better or worse than during previous presidencies, or by some other benchmark?" They have no way to know.
* {{tq|the Dow Jones Industrial Average increased 25.9% during Trump's first two years in office}} Readers ask: "is that high or low? is it better or worse than during previous presidencies, or by some other benchmark?" They have no way to know.
:: And still don't - because the Trump market rally began when he was elected in November 2016, which is why it is directly attributed to his being elected. There is some credit given to ones policies - but it takes the first year to get things in place and see some result, so that will be an after-presidency judgement. Cheers [[User:Markbassett|Markbassett]] ([[User talk:Markbassett|talk]]) 23:04, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
:: And still don't - because the Trump market rally began when he was elected in November 2016, which is why it is directly attributed to his being elected. There is some credit given to ones policies - but it takes the first year to get things in place and see some result, so that will be an after-presidency judgement. Cheers [[User:Markbassett|Markbassett]] ([[User talk:Markbassett|talk]]) 23:04, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
::: You previously proposed counting only his first year market performance, excluding his second year when the market declined. Cherrypick much? [[User:Soibangla|soibangla]] ([[User talk:Soibangla|talk]]) 00:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
I could go on, but I won't. You have said my edit is {{tq|very poor in explaining economics}} and contains {{tq|factual errors which misrepresent economics}}, when in reality your proposed alternative is demonstrably inferior, which I repeatedly demonstrated in the previous thread on this topic, but which you repeatedly pivoted from and changed the subject and did what you wanted anyway. Finally, what you and others have falsely characterized as editorializing/opinion is actually ''context'', which is very commonly disliked and hence goes unmentioned by partisans when it doesn't make "their guy" look good. Alas, I see the usual suspects have now arrived to obfuscate the reality that there is not, in fact, any economic boom as Trump repeatedly asserts, and so I will not prevail in this discussion, so this is all I will have to say on this topic at this time. PS: I studied economics at the #1 econ program on Earth and I have decades of professional experience in this sort of analysis. And you? [[User:Soibangla|soibangla]] ([[User talk:Soibangla|talk]]) 21:45, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
I could go on, but I won't. You have said my edit is {{tq|very poor in explaining economics}} and contains {{tq|factual errors which misrepresent economics}}, when in reality your proposed alternative is demonstrably inferior, which I repeatedly demonstrated in the previous thread on this topic, but which you repeatedly pivoted from and changed the subject and did what you wanted anyway. Finally, what you and others have falsely characterized as editorializing/opinion is actually ''context'', which is very commonly disliked and hence goes unmentioned by partisans when it doesn't make "their guy" look good. Alas, I see the usual suspects have now arrived to obfuscate the reality that there is not, in fact, any economic boom as Trump repeatedly asserts, and so I will not prevail in this discussion, so this is all I will have to say on this topic at this time. PS: I studied economics at the #1 econ program on Earth and I have decades of professional experience in this sort of analysis. And you? [[User:Soibangla|soibangla]] ([[User talk:Soibangla|talk]]) 21:45, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
:{{tq|Readers ask: "is that number better or worse than he said it would be, due to his policies?" But the edit provides no guidance.}} That is only what you believe readers to be asking. We are not here to provide guidance on whether 2.9% is good or bad.
:{{tq|Readers ask: "is that number better or worse than he said it would be, due to his policies?" But the edit provides no guidance.}} That is only what you believe readers to be asking. We are not here to provide guidance on whether 2.9% is good or bad.
:{{tq|it's important to say the ''average growth rates'', or else readers may (correctly) think you're inappropriately comparing two Trump years to the four years preceding him.}} Unnecessary, as rates are already averages. I only kept the "four years" to maintain as much original meaning from your proposal as I could, so I would certainly be fine with removing that number.
:{{tq|it's important to say the ''average growth rates'', or else readers may (correctly) think you're inappropriately comparing two Trump years to the four years preceding him.}} Unnecessary, as rates are already averages. I only kept the "four years" to maintain as much original meaning from your proposal as I could, so I would certainly be fine with removing that number.
:: {{tq|Unnecessary, as rates are already averages}} Not necessarily, and especially not for readers who are not economically literate. Be explicit. [[User:Soibangla|soibangla]] ([[User talk:Soibangla|talk]]) 00:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
:{{tq|Readers ask: "is that high or low? is it better or worse than during previous presidencies, or by some other benchmark?" They have no way to know.}} This is not something that should be compared between presidencies at all, and shouldn't be directly attributed to any president either. Again you're pretending that readers are asking what you happen to want the article to say.
:{{tq|Readers ask: "is that high or low? is it better or worse than during previous presidencies, or by some other benchmark?" They have no way to know.}} This is not something that should be compared between presidencies at all, and shouldn't be directly attributed to any president either. Again you're pretending that readers are asking what you happen to want the article to say.
::: Throwing out a number without ''some'' benchmark for comparison is nearly worthless. That's the only reason I compared him to previous presidents. Got a better way? Then use it. [[User:Soibangla|soibangla]] ([[User talk:Soibangla|talk]]) 00:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
:Some readers may very well want an editorial that compares Trump and Obama, or Trump as president and Trump as a candidate, but that's not the place for the highest level ''summary'' on economic policy. This is the first paragraph of the section and is only meant to introduce the topic. There is still plenty of criticism about him in the rest of the section. [[User:Onetwothreeip|Onetwothreeip]] ([[User talk:Onetwothreeip|talk]]) 23:23, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
:Some readers may very well want an editorial that compares Trump and Obama, or Trump as president and Trump as a candidate, but that's not the place for the highest level ''summary'' on economic policy. This is the first paragraph of the section and is only meant to introduce the topic. There is still plenty of criticism about him in the rest of the section. [[User:Onetwothreeip|Onetwothreeip]] ([[User talk:Onetwothreeip|talk]]) 23:23, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
::You are effectively presenting a data table in prose. If you want to add a data table, you can do that. But we have an encyclopedic responsibility to provide readers with context and meaning of the data, not just a recital of noncontextual data points. [[User:Soibangla|soibangla]] ([[User talk:Soibangla|talk]]) 00:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:23, 16 July 2019

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

    Template:Vital article

    Highlighted open discussions

    None.

    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 purge this page.

    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. Superseded by unlisted consensus
    Mention that Trump is the first president elected "without prior military or government service". (Dec 2016, superseded Nov 2024)

    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 7 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)

    Consensus sought re Mental Health guidelines

    Looking for an explicit discussion and more specific guidelines re mental health remarks within the article, to expand (or replace) the recent edits on Talk:Donald_Trump#Current_consensus #21 and #36.

    Of particular current interest is whether the article section Donald_Trump#Health_and_lifestyle should:

    • Limit/Not limit it to generic summary of existence on such concerns being stated
    • Include/exclude naming specific conditions and/or name the behaviour but do not make a diagnosis to specific mental disease
    • Include/exclude opinions of mental health professionals who have not examined him, e.g. by name and/or quote
    • Include/exclude opinions of non-medical individuals, e.g. prominent instances with name and/or quote
    • Include/exclude specific mention of book(s) The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump and/or caveats the book states or opponents state
    • Include/exclude specific mention of online petition(s), e.g. by source and/or quotes
    • Include/exclude general responses by Trump, e.g. with/without quote
    • Include/exclude any specific review/criticism of opinions by third parties
    • Any other specific actions or guidance

    Background

    The recent BLPN led to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Health of Donald Trump, with the conclusion was to close that article and merge content from Health of Donald Trump into here. Direction from the AfD was to discuss it here.

    So a couple weeks ago first there were hasty edits here adding various things with some against the guidance #21, then there was a jump to presumption that #21 had to be changed to make that legal giving us a generic guide #36 'have a para' that doesn't give much in the way of guidance about content. (There's been some ongoing flux as to what that para is.) I'm also feeling procedurally that wasn't a clean closure and fundamentally that what wasn't discussed simply isn't a proper WP:CONSENSUS.

    The AfD further remarks here and tangle of discussions under Talk:Donald_Trump#Merger_of_Health_of_Donald_Trump have some remarks offered, but are not succinct collection or apparent as agreed to.

    Previously the TALK had arrived at :

    Consensus 21. Omit any opinions about Trump's psychology held by mental health academics or professionals who have not examined him. link1, link2.

    Link1 Strongly opposed a proposal for one sentence - mentioning timesump, armchair analysis, speculation, contrary to norms in other BLPs, NPOV, BALASP, SOAPBOX, and V of Goldwater rule precludes good RS.

    Ping to Link1 participants (in order of appearance) : User:Carbon Caryatid, User:SPECIFICO, User:Objective3000, User:Mandruss, User:Markbassett, User:Power~enwiki, User:Snow_Rise, User:JFG

    Link2 Opposed armchair diagnosis for ANY living person - mentioning POV, BLPVIO, no reliable source, speculation, and EXCEPTIONAL. So not based on the Goldwater rule but the effect seems similar.

    Ping to Link2 participants (in order of appearance) : User:BullRangifer, User:Hidden_Tempo, User:PackMecEng, User:Objective3000, User:Zbrnajsem, User:MelanieN, User:Tataral, User:Mandruss, User:JFG, User:The_Wordsmith

    Currently the list scratched out #21 and instated

    Consensus 36. Include one paragraph merged from Health of Donald Trump describing views about Trump's psychology expressed by public figures, media sources, and mental health professionals who have not examined him. (link 1)

    Ping to Link1 participants for this one (in order of appearance): User:MrX, User:Tataral, User:Scjessey, User:bd2412, User:MelanieN, User:TParis, User:JFG, User:MONGO, User:Atsme, User:Starship.paint

    Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:11, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Survey

    • Include non-medical individuals and online surveys petitions, as the generic concern has demonstrated actual public relations effects/reactions, which is an actual life impact. Any voicing by prominent (e.g. Congress) seems also an actual relationship impact, but do not go into speculation of potentials for impeachment. Exclude or give very little attributed to 'medical professionals' as that is giving false information in a false sense of medical authority. Do mention there was such a survey petition or book as way to show the concern is publicly stated, but limit it to mention and don't go into these multiple lines naming the author and quotes from it. (There are links to where it belongs -- it doesn't belong here.) Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:56, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Go with what consensus stated - the medical professionals who did not examine him should be given little weight. I just researched the following statement in the article: "In April 2017 more than 25,000 mental health professionals signed a letter stating they believe Trump "manifests serious mental illness" and it's cited Footnote 107 to Psychology Today. The petition was handled by Change.org but the majority of the signers are unverifiable - they could be signatures from voters who are still angry over their candidate losing - we have no way of verifying that information. If there is a way, then feel free to correct me. I view it's inclusion as an embarrassment to have such speculative detail in the pedia in light of recent consensus at the AfD. Since this is a health issue, I have notified Project Med advising them of this discussion. Atsme Talk 📧 16:34, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Concur as to the petition, except for the embarrassment part. I see no indication of any controls on the petition, aside from the request to "please state your degree" (excuse me if I don't take their words for it). Flimsy. I'd remove that sentence. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:54, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      That sort of unverifiable list of petitioners is akin to the same kind of lists generated by those who refute the scientific consensus on climate change or ones I used to see of those who refute the federal investigations into the 9/11 attacks. So, yes, that should be stricken.--MONGO (talk) 17:31, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      User:Atsme - I revised the phrasing to 'petition' from when starship asked me about 'survey' (oops) and tried to correct the article miscopy in dubbing from the Health article. It was in the Health article section from his political opponents. Is the current language better ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:20, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Close Request speedy close. We discussed this and came to a consensus. It's documented. We're not going to keep rehashing every week until certain people get the result they want. Try again in a year.--v/r - TP 02:22, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    User:TParis Umm not an RFC. Otherwise ... what is the consensus specifics that you are referring to ? Does it for example give a specific phrasing or any guidance about online petitions ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:24, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't need to. Please don't be disruptive by trying to rehash an argument that has already run its course because you don't like the result.--v/r - TP 04:13, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    User:TParis I have asked for discussion for specifics missing in the generic ‘add a paragraph’. Please stop with incorrect statements like “we discussed this” and labeling a call for discussion as “disruptive”. If you truly think the specifics above were covered, prove it by stating how/where you see them. Otherwise just let discussion proceed. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:04, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh good lord. We don't owe you anything to whatever degree you demand answers. The paragraph has been written and agreed to. Knock it off.--v/r - TP 03:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    User:TParis Nope, you don’t owe me answers ... nor false statements either. The five paragraphs put in and later edits were by BOLD moves and the MelanieN proposal did not remain. Often the consensus are on specific wording, other times on principles guiding content. With only ‘add a para’ it seems anything goes and not really a consensus by discussion so I ask for what there may be. Please cease false statements and objection to block TALK. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:25, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not blocking anything. I don't see anyone willing to engage with you. I see many people stating there is already a consensus on this and some are confused why you are starting this conversation again when it just ended. You're the only one who doesn't believe there is already a consensus. You've had 9 people comment, 5 who opposed rehashing the discussion. Three of the remaining four are opposed to your proposal. You're wikilawyering what consensus means and it's disruptive. I'm urging you to stop because it'll lead us to Arbitration Enforcement.--v/r - TP 01:57, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    User:TParis you can see by being unable to find/show prior answers to the questions raised, there was not any consensus on such specifics that this thread is asking about. I believe there is obviously a #36, and that equally obviously it was only a general ‘add a para’ not specific of wording/content nor stating guidance principles. Please cease personal attacks on my motives and false statements about the topic. I am simply asking for further discussion on such details as may be available. As was mentioned within the discussion about consensus. As #36 neither mandates or precludes much of anything, I’m asking for discussion to get whatever further thoughts may be. Meanwhile what is written seems to say that four of the five new paras are open to delete, and any edit at all is allowed in the one para. If you WANT that, or think that was the consensus, then just say so. If not, state what the consensus specifics you believe were stated and where, or what thoughts you wish. But stop making vague denials and allegations about my motives or intent. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:51, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


    Mark, I considered it a local survey which is a step down from a formal AfC. I've already mentioned the sentence about the unverifiable petition above - delete it. Shorten the book info per DUE - reduce it to a single sentence and WikiLink to the book. The first sentence in that section already provides a summary of the armchair opinions. Readers can read the wikilinked book, or watch Trump on TV and form their own opinions. They're probably just as reliable as an armchair diagnosis. Atsme Talk 📧 04:27, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion

    • Respect all the consensus - keep #21 AND keep #36 - it seems a false dichotomy that one couldn't respect BOTH AfD and Consensus 21; ditto to me one can come up with a para per #36 that does not break #21, so respect all the considerations (a line from WP:CONSENSUS) and keep all the consensus. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:39, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Is this a 9-part RfC? R2 (bleep) 05:57, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    My apologies, for some reason I thought this was an RfC. R2 (bleep) 19:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Markbassett was told told above to "stop trying to relitigate the AfD." I didn't understand half of this section, it's written in a way that is just likely to wear people out, and I don't see a need for this discussion. We just agreed on a new consensus, summary of the consensus, and text that has been included in the article. There is no need for a rehash of the entire debate now. --Tataral (talk) 12:52, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tataral This is looking for statements of guidance. There aren't any or discussion about them much, so nothing to 'relitigate'. There was a loose liking for a MelanieN proposal, but it wound up not one of the 5 paragraphs that are in there at the moment. The consensus #36 seems just saying 'have a paragraph' -- and edits seem deleting 2 paragraphs and inserting 6 paragraphs. Anyway, without some specifics re what content guidance it seems you or I could put anything in or delete anything there. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:19, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I didn't receive a ping, Markbassett, even though you mentioned my user name. What's this about online surveys? Before [1] Health of Donald Trump was redirected, is there any mention of an online survey? And yes, maybe this is too complex. starship.paint (talk) 13:45, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, it's "petition" not "survey" ... I will fix it. Markbassett (talk) 02:25, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    None of those pings were sent—there was no signature in the edit that added them. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:54, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Mandruss Thanks, I'll try to fix that. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:04, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    User:MrX You reverted multiple edits in one go, including this correction; I will reinstate it. As mentioned here, the cite does not support the wording shown -- saying petition (not 'letter') at change.org, and mentioned not assured of actually being mental health professionals. And this is the initial bit on the item out of the Health article, I'm instead using the conclusion of 41,000 signatures sent to Congress. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:47, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It`s much too complex. 107.217.84.95 (talk) 18:40, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I won’t be editing much for a while. May not return. Just a note. starship.paint (talk) 00:48, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Markbassett why did you ping me? I'm happy to opine about a specific content proposal but I have no interest in a tl;dr discussion about god knows what.- MrX 🖋 02:24, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    User:MrX You were a participant in past discussion on mental health content guidelines so ping you as this may relate to your pirior concerns. If you've no longer an interest in doing content guidelines is up to you. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:10, 29 June 2019 (UTC).[reply]

    I'm confused and I just want to sit by the pool and drink cocktails. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:09, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, me too, although po folk like me have to settle for bathtub and fruit juice. This one feels like people just walked away from it, and the consensus is hard to discern and seems largely de facto in nature. That's not how I like to see things, but who am I to complain? ―Mandruss ☎ 15:25, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Mark, in your recent edit where you said you were reducing the info about the book, you also deleted the sentence where Trump responds to comments about his mental health. I thought we had consensus to include that. MelanieN alt (talk) 16:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    User:MelanieN - (sorry for delay, I didn’t see a ping on this) I don’t think so ... nothing I spotted said include that remark in archive 100 discussion ‘what is the current consensus’. That section had MelanieN describing the consensus #36 as not locking in specific wording, and thinking we should state consensus on the TYPE of thing we can say in this para.
    I note the para does not yet include describing views of public figures and media about President Trump’s mental health as phrased at consensus #36, but that particular snippet seems not what was meant nor Trump intended as the sole public figure. The public figures remarks seem the questions/declarations from the prior Health article and not meaning what Trump said. In the cite that bit actually is not the RS lead given as his general response (‘declared he was perfectly sane and accused his critics of raising questions to score political points’) nor his response to Dangerous Case which the text wording might be misread as. It seems part of a tweet referring to the election as proof of competence ‘won the presidency on his first try, that would qualify as genius and a very stable genius’. Anyway, it was deleted from the discussion in Survey Atsme wanted the book part ‘reduce it to a single sentence’ which seemed about the text read as 3 sentences about it. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:25, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I have restored the consensus version of this material. It should not be changed unless there is an overriding consensus to do so (not just the same one or two editors who dissented to the first consensus). - MrX 🖋 02:28, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    MrX, it looks to me as if Mark removed [2] part of your “consensus restoration”, including a sentence about the book’s conclusions, as well as the sentence where Trump responds. His edit summary was reduce book coverage to 1 line and wikilink per TALK at “Consensus sought re Mental Health guidelines”. Mark, could you please explain where you “sought consensus re Mental Health guidelines” and what was said? In the meantime I am going to restore Trump’s defense of his own mental health, since you said nothing about that in your edit summary; possibly deleted by accident. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:42, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, Markbassett deleted that sentence twice: [3][4] I don't see that a new consensus has been reached, so I think he has some explaining to do.- MrX 🖋 00:54, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    User:MelanieN ? Umm... re ‘please explain where you’ ? you started by saying the answer as given in edit comment “per TALK at “Consensus sought re Mental Health guidelines”.” That is the title of the thread we are currently TALKing in. More specifically the Talk about it was in the Survey subsection, from Atsme desire to reduce the Dangerous book section to one line. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:38, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Markbassett, please don't make significant changes to the consensus wording unless you form a new consensus with at least as many participants.- MrX 🖋 12:21, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    User:MrX That’s not a viable notion and one not generally acceptable/accepted — I think #36 itself failed to meet that. Also, the TALK for #36 said no specific language and for later discussion, so specific language is not in #36 and this notion would be contrary to #36 backstory. Otherwise, observe this *is* seeking general discussion of whatever as #36 TALK mentioned discussion on specifics - and it has pinged everyone in the multiple links of consensus #21 and #36 to get whichever input on the points of concern from those previously involved. Only way to seek getting more input would seem RFCs. RFCs to me seem right if a specific item surfaces. Are you thinking a general call would be a better approach for inputs ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:54, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    We should all strive for clarity in our communication with one another. If you will simply propose the change in a clear, limited scope discussion, I'm sure we can determine if your proposed text has consensus. It's as easy as "Should we change "xxx" to "yyy"? Cheers. - MrX 🖋 16:51, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    User:MrX Not a thread about me proposing. The thread is looking for an explicit discussion and more specific content guidance re mental health, to expand (or replace) the recent edits on current consensus #21 and #36. The talk behind #36 said specifics would be discussed, so I’m trying to get some of that discussion to happen. In the Survey section, put whatever edit specific notions you may have. At the moment, looks like no specifics other than ‘one paragraph’. The consensus #36 did not include specifying a guideline or a specific wording as other numbered consensus did. That allows almost anything - Edits could be material not from the Health article, the other four added paras could be deleted, the Fury book might be added, the Dangerous book might be deleted — it has all been done & open to the BOLD approach. So go ahead with either Survey talk or edits. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:43, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    The main discussion on this subject, with extensive discussion and good participation, was the now-archived Merger of Health of Donald Trump about how to carry out the merge. Mark's followup section here, “Consensus sought re Mental Health guidelines”, has had much less participation and it does not replace the main discussion. (I think TParis and Tataral spoke for most of us on that score; there was little participation in the new discussion because we all thought the issue had been settled.) The consensus version at that earlier discussion included a second sentence about the book’s conclusions which Mark/Atsme decided to remove, but I will say I am OK with removing it. That version also included Trump’s own description of his mental health; no discussion or consensus here has said to leave it out, but Mark has removed it twice. Isn't it policy that if we report negative material or criticism of a living person, we also include their response? Do I now have to open still another separate discussion, about whether to retain Trump’s description of his own mental health (which was formerly agreed to), or can it now remain in the article? -- MelanieN (talk) 16:19, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    User:MelanieN Feel free to do separate topics, though it seems within this thread Survey scope at the Atsme remark is the place with discussion already started. Also feel free to note prior edits BOLDly flowed, and not resulted in specifics followed nor larger guidelines stated so... by your own posts in Archive 100 just about everything seems intentionally left open to more of that.
    As to the line itself... just doesn’t seem to actually do an honest WP:BALANCE nor to fairly present a Trump response to Dangerous Case. The cited NY Times article describes his general response as declaring he was perfectly sane and accused his critics or raising questions to score political points. The notion of showing Trump response does not seem served by instead OR selection/trimming a partial quote out of context a tweet about his winning the presidency being proof of genius that seems a response countering separate stupidity charges in “Fire and Fury”. The juxtaposition in article may appear as if it is a response to Dangerous Case, when instead the NY Times cite places this close behind “Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House” and months after “Dangerous”. Whether one should also show BALANCE with counter views as the NYTimes does with Conway (e.g. “The never-ending attempt to nullify an election is tiresome”) has it’s own questions of should it be a later paragraph or a second line on each or what overall limits on QUOTEFARM should be. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:49, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Our article cites TWO publications which questioned his mental health, and there have been others which we did not mention. Clearly he was responding to the totality of such comments; there is no basis for regarding it as a response just to the book. The reference cited for “very stable genius” is from January 2018, when he tweeted this, so not likely to be taken as a response to a book published in October 2017. Anyhow, Trump has said that more than once. I have added a second reference, from May 2019. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:30, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    [User:MelanieN|MelanieN]] The article however does not state any of that - inste it gives part of the Fire and Fury response as if it is a response to the topic. That's a false portrayal by putting it after the stated items of the online petition and Dangerous Case or the conditions narcissism, delusion, and dementia. But since it is a snipped response to Fire and Fury assertions of chaos and stupidity, speaking the morning after that book release to the assertions made, it is just not related to them. "Stupid" may be a claim about mental fitness, but it is not a mental health issue. To correct the false portrayal, one might sy the context of 'In response to Fire and Fury', and/or include a more accurate portrayal of the tweets below, ... or just drop the line as not relevant to the section.
    • Jan 6, 2018 07:19:10 AM Now that Russian collusion, after one year of intense study, has proven to be a total hoax on the American public, the Democrats and their lapdogs, the Fake News Mainstream Media, are taking out the old Ronald Reagan playbook and screaming mental stability and intelligence.....
    • ....Actually, throughout my life, my two greatest assets have been mental stability and being, like, really smart. Crooked Hillary Clinton also played these cards very hard and, as everyone knows, went down in flames. I went from VERY successful businessman, to top T.V. Star.....
    • ....to President of the United States (on my first try). I think that would qualify as not smart, but genius....and a very stable genius at that!
    So, how to make it better ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:36, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a non-issue. It is just your idea that it (falsely) appears to be a response to Dangerous Case or to any other specific thing. That's not how the paragraph is constructed. Every sentence is standalone, unrelated to the previous sentence. Trump is responding to the entire universe of people questioning his mental health, including the items you quote, and that is what our final sentence does. --MelanieN alt (talk) 18:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    User:MelanieN mmm... I’m seeing the tweet as clearly not a general response, nor does the sentence standalone unless it adds a lead clause of what it’s about. The tweet is the morning of Fire and Fury, RS state it is his response to that book. And intelligence is just not a response to the text named issues narcissism/delusions/dementia, but is a response to Fire claiming he’s stupid. In the very NYT cite used it makes a different statement about his general response to things is, which could be stated. If you do not view my offered choices for edit as distinctly better, is there one you at least feel is about as good ? (Say the tweet as his response to Fire&Fury, give the NYT description of his general response, drop the line...). RSVP, Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:35, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    User:MelanieN. Haven’t heard further from you on correction/improvement preferences. The tweet is not a response to the article text Dangerous nor the article mentioned online survey — the juxtaposition perhaps misleading. It is the morning after Fire and Fury and RS say it is a response to those assertions of chaotic and stupid, and the cite gives a different description of what they feel his general response is. SO... your earlier response seemed to think the unstated year apart will mean readers don’t get misled, and that the tweet is a general response despite the cited article. Can you provide some proposed text and/or cite? Otherwise — before I try another edit on it - other than delete I’ve offered other possibles, so would you have a second-best like or acceptable feel for any of: giving what the cite actually says is general response, or to add a clarifying lead that the tweet is about Fire, show the full tweet, or some combination ? RSVP Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:36, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Mark, I’m out of town and cannot log in with my main acvount, so I only saw this by accident. I will be better able to respond in a few days. Offhand my thought is: since you are so hung up on his timing or motivation for that one tweet, I can just delete that reference and replace it with others that are not a response to anything in particular - since he has said this often. It is his opinion of his own mental status and abilities, and per BLP he is entitled to have his view represented. MelanieN alt (talk) 15:42, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Consensus #37 - anyone?

    #Current consensus #37 is now a, well, a consensus. It had wide support, but nobody is (so far) volunteering to help implement it. Meanwhile the article is currently exceeding the template include size limit, again.

    I imagined that I could just go in and start removing the overly-detailed content that the resolution was meant to eliminate. I didn't get very far before I realized that it would need to be replaced by much shorter, summary-level content. And that's where I fall short. Writing prose from scratch is not my forte, as some of you may have noticed.

    For example, Donald Trump#Economy and trade is currently 600 words at a detail level, and I think it could be reduced to under a hundred words of summary-level.

    Until the existing over-detail has been eliminated, it will be hard to prevent the addition of more of it, and the consensus will have no beneficial effect. Is there anyone who feels they can take on some of this task in the near future? ―Mandruss ☎ 18:00, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    At some point recently, someone removed in its entirety this tight summary as the lead paragraph of Donald Trump#Economy and trade. It should be restored in favor of removing other details. This is 140 words:

    The economic expansion that began in June 2009 continued through Trump's first two years in office, although it did not accelerate as Trump had promised during his campaign. Trump had asserted that a policy of tax cuts and deregulation would result in 3% annualized GDP growth, and perhaps much higher, but it reached a high of 2.9% in his second year, while the average growth rates of job creation and inflation-adjusted weekly earnings were considerably lower than during the preceding four years. Economists were nevertheless impressed with the continued strength of the economy nearly ten years into its expansion, as the unemployment rate continued declining, to below 4%, amid only modest inflation. The Dow increased 25.9% during Trump's first two years in office, the second best performance of any president since Gerald Ford, exceeded only by Barack Obama's 48.6% gain.

    soibangla (talk) 18:40, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • That’s mostly talking about talking, and/or over half spent in a number of POV digressions/spin rather than a summary of the economy, as noted in “The economic expansion” below. One could greatly reduce by just snipping gossipy bits or appearing as seeking negative comparisons. Try

    “The economic expansion that began in June 2009 continued though President Trump’s first two years in office, with GDP at 2.9% in his second year and unemployment declining to below 4%, amid only modest inflation. In the first year after his election, a Trump stock market rally led to the S&P rising 21.2%.”

    (The 21% from CNBC “One year later” about Trump stock market rally. Not done much since then.) ((p.s. One could go into Breitbart “All the experts who told us stocks would crash if Trump won” but it’s not BLP topics. Not everything can go here.). Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:11, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Transclude Presidency?

    In my view, the goals of our consensus #37 and the lead of Presidency of Donald Trump are very similar; i.e. the appropriate levels of detail are about the same. I think we should consider replacing the content of Donald Trump#Presidency—all of it, including its subsections—with a transclusion of that lead, excluding its first sentence for formatting reasons. Citations would have to be added to that lead, but it already has a few so that wouldn't be a departure from current convention there. There are certainly arguments to be made against this, but I believe they are outweighed by the obvious benefits. Except for a high-level "executive summary", the Presidency article should be the primary go-to for information about his presidency.

    This concept is sandboxed here.

    Do not count this comment as a !vote, I have !voted separately below. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:38, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment this is an important decision that should not be rushed (not saying it has been). Please allow ample time for people to consider the proposal and comment, especially given the ongoing governance and harassment crisis. I'm installing new baseboards in the dining rooms, so I don't have time to look at this in depth right now.- MrX 🖋 19:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Agreed. You have multiple dining rooms? ―Mandruss ☎ 19:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Ha. No just one.- MrX 🖋 20:45, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a terrible idea. No other president’s article is trimmed down to nothing like this. This article gives more coverage about his divorces or bankruptcies than it would with this pretense at covering his entire presidency. 19:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MelanieN alt (talk • contribs)
      Do we have a spinoff article about his divorces? If not, this is the only place to put that information. The Presidency article should be viewed as an extension of this one, done merely for size reasons, and this article should not be expected to cover his entire presidency at that level of detail. I agree that this has not been widely done for other presidents, but I disagree that that's an argument against it. Better ideas must be given the chance to prevail. Disagree that it's a better idea, but please don't presume that all better ideas have already been implemented. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strongly oppose — Trump is notable as a President, and his presidency should be fully covered in this article. I think there is a difference in scope. This article is about Trump the man, whereas the "Presidency" article is about his government as a whole.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Leaning support with concerns. The proposal is better than what we currently have on this article, but this would direct people to the presidency article over this article, and that article has a lot of problems too. I think we can go ahead with the transcluding proposal temporarily until we can create a better presidency section natively in this article. The presidency section of this article should eventually be more detailed than the lead of the presidency article, but for now it makes sense to do this, just not permanently. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Oppose 2600:1702:2340:9470:45FD:73DE:5B30:D6DD (talk) 00:24, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong support. Strongly oppose viewing this article as needing to stand alone regarding the presidency; that's precisely why we have the {{Main}} hatnote. Readers will click through, or not, depending on their level of interest in the detail about the presidency. I find the third, middle level of detail, with all its attendant issues and problems, very hard to justify. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:47, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, Mandruss, we already know you are a strong support. How do we know? You proposed it here in the first place, and you have supported it/argued for it in replying to pretty much every comment here. One !vote is enough. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:02, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    "I think we should consider" does not equate to strong support in my book. But I have added a bolded comment above, just in case someone assessing consensus here might do that so carelessly as not to notice that I have !voted separately for the sake of consistency, simplicity, and organization. Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:12, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    As for you have supported it/argued for it in replying to pretty much every comment here, you should probably have another look. At that time I had replied once in support of the proposal:[5] The rest of my replies have been of the nature of "You caught me in the middle of some testing" and "Link fixed". Actually I have replied to no other Oppose !vote, except for "Link fixed". Perhaps you could strike that and try to be more judicious about such statements? ―Mandruss ☎ 04:35, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - There was a largish section of another article transcluded into this one two to three years ago. If I recall correctly, I removed it because it created some difficulties. This article has primacy, if for no other reason than it has 2,634 page watchers compared to 255 for the presidency article. This article has nearly 18 times as much traffic as the presidency article. I don't think it is desirable to duplicate large amounts of content, word for word, between articles. Transcluding would likely confuse inexperienced editors wishing to edit the presidency section of this article.- MrX 🖋 02:43, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - does not give what #37 calls for. The Presidency LEAD does not fit the #37 BLP part to be things likely to have a lasting impact on his life or the long-term legacy, and has things other than the limit set by #37. The presidency summary just isn’t the kind of summary that #37 says should be here & what here should be limited to. On a Side note, I see that the link from #37 isn’t properly going to archive 99. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:48, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Link fixed. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:00, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      p.s. I do think that length seems better, and would support manually deleting way down as being in line with #37. And it was a clever thought. Markbassett (talk) 13:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I don't really understand the view that doing a transclusion like this would somehow mean giving Trump's presidency less coverage. If anything, the reverse is true; moreover, it will encourage more readers to click through to Presidency of Donald Trump, it'll ensure that article gets more attention, it'll reduce the length burden on this article, and it will adhere more strongly to the summary style so desirable in articles like this. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:14, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alternate proposal Removing most of the information about his presidency really serves our readers badly. For a less controversial/less damaging trim to the article, why not replace our extensive coverage under “Business career” with the lead section of Business career of Donald Trump - with subsections using the leads of Legal affairs of Donald Trump, Trump University, and Donald J. Trump Foundation? I’m not actually a fan of this either, but it makes a lot more sense than stripping out all detail about his presidency - the main thing people are coming to this article to find out about. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:14, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Applaud the efforts to trim the article but would prefer we eliminate a whole slew of other things of little consequence. I also debate the chances many will "click through" via a subarticle link to get to the meat of the discussion on what Trump is now know mostly for worldwide, his presidency. Therefore, I humbly oppose this otherwise fair effort to trim the article down.--MONGO (talk) 22:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point. Rather than click through, they will try to add the missing stuff themselves - and/or come to this talk page in outrage because we don't mention or go into any detail about what they think is important. Are we ready for that onslaught? -- MelanieN (talk) 23:14, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm certainly prepared to cross that bridge when and if we come to it, nothing is irreversible, and I oppose the use of crystal balls in Wikipedia content decision-making. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:54, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose – The presidency is already the most defining legacy of Trump's life. Transcluding it from another article is just lazy, and prone to confusion for readers and occasional editors. — JFG talk 02:33, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Consensus sought re Presidency summary

    OK, seeking ideas on how to implement Consensus#37 “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.”

    Concerns seemed

    • How to determine “likely to” and what “lasting” or “long-term” means
    • How to bound “borderline or debatable”.

    Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:56, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Inputs

    • “Likely” is shown untrue simply by waiting — if the story coverage basically ceases within a month, it is open for removal.
    • SCOPE - I read “related to” presidency as section 6 (Presidency) — and also 2.6 (Conflicts of interest), 4 (Public profile) and 5 (Political career). Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:56, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Objection

    I removed #37 from the "consensus" listings at the top of the page. There is no such consensus. I see that Mandruss added it a week ago, but this seems to be his idea or proposal (hence "resolved"; that language is used for a proposal, not a result), and I doubt if most people will recognize it as something they agreed to. This is the first time I have seen it. User:Mandruss, where did this come from? I for one do not agree with it, and as far as I can see it has not been the result of any discussion here. (It's true I was gone when it was inserted, but I don't think I missed anything major). It was suggested that his presidency should be reduced to the lead of the Presidency article, but that was opposed by a majority here (by my count, four in favor, six opposed). I suggested that a summary-only approach could better be applied to his business career, but nobody picked up on that. I'm going to be gone for another week. but I want to reiterate my strong objection to the notion that his presidency should be reduced to a summary in this article. Summarize other, less important stuff if you are determined to reduce the size of the article.-- MelanieN (talk) 05:26, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @MelanieN: - User:Mandruss, where did this come from? It came from the discussion linked from the consensus entry that you removed. That's how the consensus list works. While I did close the discussion, involved close is permitted when consensus is sufficiently clear. I judged that 8–3 was sufficiently clear, subject to objection as always, and no one objected to either the close or the closer until now. I did nothing remotely wrong or even untoward here; this is how the process has worked on this page for years. One unstricken mistaken accusation of me at a time, please. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:49, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Since #37 was entirely in process, and since you're going to be gone for another week, I'll restore the consensus list entry for now. From your comments I can only guess that you may have confused #37 with the question at #Transclude Presidency?. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:11, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I did confuse it with the transclusion suggestion. At least I saw that one. So this "consensus" for major, major changes to the article is based on one lightly attended discussion (I was not the only one to miss it, and no-one was pinged). Well, since I will be gone for the next week, please tally me as a "no" vote on any proposal that eliminates most of the "presidency" detail in favor of a bare-bones summary. Why in the world can't you focus on taking the ax to less important content like "family and personal life" or "business career" or "public profile"? Why cut the one area that readers actually want to see? -- MelanieN (talk) 15:06, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Because the problem isn’t mostly in the ~14 screens giving his life story, the problem is mostly in the ~28 further screens largely duplicating the Presidency of Donald Trump. (Sometimes direct cut-paste duplicates.) There is just a feasibility issue to going on with this, as there is another ~18 months to his term to be fit in with presumably some more impeachment talk, more wall talk, a re-election campaign, claims of meddling (maybe Chinese this time for variety), probably further world events, and so on. So time to talk some guidance on ‘not everything can fit here’. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:17, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    The economic expansion that began in June 2009

    Onetwothreeip I would appreciate if you would restore the first paragraph of your reversion. This first paragraph is a concise summary of the Trump economy, and the lead of the subsection, and it should serve as the core of that subsection as we seek to trim excessive details from the article. Thank you. soibangla (talk) 22:17, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Soibangla and Onetwothreeip: - I have restored it. However, I acknowledge that we need to cut this article. So I have cut other details from that section. The Mexico thing turned out to be nothing implemented so I cut it. If it actually happens, it can be restored. Also trimmed the China part. Here is a link to what I have done. [6]. I have put the parts cut at User:Onetwothreeip/Donald Trump. starship.paint (talk) 02:23, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Soibangla Starship.paint It would really have to be written to be more relevant to Trump's economic policies and actions. That information was really just about American economic history, and Trump saying X but the truth is Y. There is no such thing as "the Trump economy", for example. We shouldn't just give Trump's perspective and then an opposing view, we should be objective. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:26, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Onetwothreeip - you can try your hand at rewriting it. At present, you see a problem to correct, I currently don't, so it's hard for me to rewrite it. starship.paint (talk) 02:29, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Onetwothreeip, I am confident the paragraph provides everything you ask for, in a very concise manner. soibangla (talk) 02:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't talk about Trump, it talks about what Trump talks about. It seems like whoever wrote this has decided that Trump's claims about the economy are relevant to the article, and therefore the criticisms and corrections of those claims are also relevant.
    The economic expansion that began in June 2009 continued through Trump's first two years in office, although it did not accelerate as Trump had promised during his campaign. Trump had asserted that a policy of tax cuts and deregulation would result in 3% annualized GDP growth, and perhaps much higher, but it reached a high of 2.9% in his second year, while the average growth rates of job creation and inflation-adjusted weekly earnings were considerably lower than during the preceding four years. Economists were nevertheless impressed with the continued strength of the economy nearly ten years into its expansion, as the unemployment rate continued declining, to below 4%, amid only modest inflation. The Dow increased 25.9% during Trump's first two years in office, the second best performance of any president since Gerald Ford, exceeded only by Barack Obama's 48.6% gain.[578][579][580][581][582] Through his first 28 months in office, Trump repeatedly and falsely characterized the economy during his presidency as the best in American history.[583]
    Just to be clear, this is what I'm talking about. It's mostly irrelevant trivia. Why do we care about "economic expansion" from 2009 onwards here? Why do we care that it didn't "accelerate", or what Trump promised in a campaign? This paragraph is just his stream of opinions followed by explaining why he's wrong, which is not encyclopaedic. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:01, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    it talks about what Trump talks about is about...Trump. It briefly explains he inherited an expansion, not a contraction he had to turn around, and explains his policy of tax cuts and deregulation and what he said the results would be, versus what they’ve actually been. It touches all the major metrics of GDP, jobs, wages, unemployment rate, inflation and stocks. It notes that the expansion has continued during his two years, and that is quite notable, but is not the best economy ever as he has asserted 135+ times. soibangla (talk) 03:16, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would we care what he "inherited"? We can care about the changes that happened in the economy after his inauguration, such as a change in the GDP growth rate. We can't seriously be expected to compare everything Trump has said with reality, except in the context of an article or section dedicated to his relationship with the truth. I don't know if it was you who wrote this paragraph but it's very poor in explaining economics as well. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:00, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would we care what he "inherited"? Because it's important to provide the historical context of the economy he encountered upon taking office. We can care about the changes that happened in the economy after his inauguration, such as a change in the GDP growth rate And the paragraph addresses that. We can't seriously be expected to compare everything Trump has said with reality The paragraph does not attempt to do that. I don't know if it was you who wrote this paragraph but it's very poor in explaining economics as well I did indeed write it, it doesn't attempt to "explain economics," it describes very succinctly what has happened, and I will stand by the paragraph as steadfastly as any other edit I've ever made. The bulk of the paragraph has remained completely intact and unchallenged for the weeks into months it's been there, and you are the only editor who has questioned a single word of it. And now you appear to be changing your rationale for reverting it in the first place. soibangla (talk) 17:33, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Onetwothreeip I agree this is mostly not talking about the economy, it’s gossipy talking about talking and dubious spin. I’ve offered a version above with that 50%-plus cut out. I would add what’s left is just a few measurements — still not his policies and it’s not Biographical either. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Show of hands, please: who agrees the paragraph is "gossipy" and "dubious spin?" soibangla (talk) 20:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Not intentionally, but the paragraph prioritises political arguments and gossip over an objective analysis of the economic policies. As for historical context, the paragraph contains a very narrow context, one that is entirely designed to debunk some of Trump's statements and then to give credit to him. We should be doing neither of those things. There is no change in the GDP growth rate discussed, only a comparison to Barack Obama which is completely arbitrary. The rest of the content in this section is more like proper encyclopaedic content, but the first paragraph reads just like a summary of media narratives. If this were read one hundred years from now, they would think the author's desire was to refute Trump's statements. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:28, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps not surprisingly, I fundamentally disagree with virtually everything you've said, and I don't think either of us will persuade the other, but I encourage you to propose alternative language here in Talk. soibangla (talk) 01:01, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    If he inherited the economy during the 2008 recession where would we be ? 2600:1702:2340:9470:E088:7293:D0EB:C566 (talk) 05:58, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I already gave an alternative phrasing trimming gossip/spin in the thread “Consensus #37 - anyone?” - which said

    ”The economic expansion that began in June 2009 continued through President Trump’s first two years in office, with GDP growth at 2.9% in his second year and unemployment declining to below 4%, amid only modest inflation. In the first year after his election, a Trump stock market rally led to the S&P 500 rising 21.2%.”

    Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:05, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Mark, I like your first sentence which is succinct and eliminates all the chatter. I don't agree with the second sentence which cherry-picks only his first year. If we are going to mention the stock market at all it should be for his presidency to date. Sample sources: Market Watch], Fortune, Business Insider. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:43, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    What you call "chatter" I call "context," which Mark's proposal completely lacks. soibangla (talk) 17:25, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    User:MelanieN ok, just without the “Trump stock market rally” to be clear it’s not the same thing as the rally period. The “Trump stock market rally” would be the rally period, circa November 2016 to March 2017 as reported. The overall stock performance from January 2017 to date is an decent bit of objective data, but is a separate topic. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:25, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Markbassett Why do you begin talking about his first two years, then switch to only his first year for the stock market? Is it because the market was down during his second year? soibangla (talk) 03:25, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Soibangla Generally from cleaning the prior content. The first story seemed a cite summation reflective on two-year mark. But a rally story is however long the rally was. The stock market story of greatest WEIGHT seems not a comparison bit but the “Trump stock market rally”. I had a CNN cite to March, but on checking Dow the rise seems more generally from 18,848 on 6 Nov 2016 to 26,617 on 22 January 2018. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:55, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I just want to add that discussing metrics like economic growth and share market performance is simply CNN-style pundit chatter from both sides. Let's also avoid saying "President Trump" and other news media terms like "stock market rally". Let's stick to the economic policies of the administration, and their observable effects. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:30, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's stick to the economic policies of the administration, and their observable effects OK, here it is:

    Trump had asserted that a policy of tax cuts and deregulation would result in 3% annualized GDP growth, and perhaps much higher, but it reached a high of 2.9% in his second year, while the average growth rates of job creation and inflation-adjusted weekly earnings were considerably lower than during the preceding four years. Economists were nevertheless impressed with the continued strength of the economy nearly ten years into its expansion, as the unemployment rate continued declining, to below 4%, amid only modest inflation.

    How do you distinguish "metrics like economic growth" from "observable effects"? Is there a way you would propose to observe the effects without using economic metrics? soibangla (talk) 03:17, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Soibangla But that seems mostly things NOT policy or observed metrics. The phrasing of 3 percent “but” is not giving a Trump policy, it’s spinning 2.9 as a negative. Vague comparison to Obama at 2 odd metrics for 4 year period predating him also is not a Trump policy nor is it giving specific info of Trump numbers. Economists emotions are not a Trump policy, and seems not ‘observable effect’. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:19, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Markbassett Context matters. As the edit says, Trump said his policies would get GDP to 3%, and maybe much higher, but they haven't so far, it has matched the 2015 rate of 2.9%. He also said, but I did not mention to keep the length down, that "I will be the greatest jobs president that God ever created," but his average job growth has lagged the prior four years, as have wages/earnings (with today's jobs report, average job creation is 13% lower during his first 29 months than during the 29 months that preceded him). These are not "odd" metrics, they are among the top three that Americans care about. It doesn't give "specific info of Trump numbers" because, again, I wanted to keep the length down and not bombard the reader with numbers, they can read the refs for the specifics. soibangla (talk) 17:25, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Soibangla That is backwards to gossipy talking about talking, and talking about Obama instead of giving information about Trump in policy and objective measures. (p.s. last quarter seems 3.1% so the snipe about 2.9 is outdated, and the latest strong jobs report likely again sets some all-time records.). On the contrary, the common practice is just reporting the percentage unemployment rate and the thousands of jobs created that month. Not some odd percentage of percentage or as some odd comparative and not versus campaign speech snippets. Just the economic facts.). Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:46, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Onetwothreeip, I don't see that you have established consensus to alter long-standing content that is superior to your version, as I have extensively explained to you but you have chosen to ignore. soibangla (talk) 18:42, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I haven't altered content "superior" to "my version". I have made copyedits of the first paragraph of that section, which you identified as having been authored by you. Please do not take the alterations personally. I'm more than willing to go through each element. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:53, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    How do you distinguish "metrics like economic growth" from "observable effects"? Is there a way you would propose to observe the effects without using economic metrics?
    The 3% figure for GDP growth wasn't a metric, it was something that Donald Trump said. Comments by Donald Trump are not inherently notable. We also have no reason to believe that the 2.9% annual GDP growth for a particular quarter is particularly notable. It's not particularly more or less notable than any other quarterly growth. We're certainly not here to evaluate Donald Trump's campaign statements, that can be done in some other section or some other article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:59, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I stopped reading when you said I have made copyedits of the first paragraph. No, they were significant changes to the meaning. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump&diff=905652241&oldid=905648782 soibangla (talk) 17:12, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Soibangla I agree that my editing changed the meaning of some sentences. That was the intention. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:31, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    North Korea

    Days after the summit, satellite imagery showed reconstruction of the Sohae ICBM launch site, which previous was thought be in the process of dismantling.[1][2] Some analysts stated that the renewed activity was designed to pressure Washington back to the negotiating table.[3]

    Sources

    1. ^ Sang-Hun, Choe (March 5, 2019). "North Korea Has Started Rebuilding Key Missile-Test Facilities, Analysts Say". The New York Times.
    2. ^ Gordon, Michael R. (March 7, 2019). "North Korean Missile Site Appears Operational, Images Show". The Wall Street Journal.
    3. ^ Tong-Hyung, Kim (March 8, 2019). "'Normal operations' at NKorea launch site". Yahoo! News. Australian Associated Press. Retrieved April 27, 2019.

    This is purely speculative. There is no evidence that anything significant is happening. In an article of this scope three sentences on this issue seem unwarranted.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:32, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I can understand why it was added, but I think it is only tangentially related to Trump and can be safely removed. This latest addition to the section seems worthy of note, however. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:14, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe I added this and I think it should remain unless we also remove the second sentence of the second paragraph, which is every bit as speculative, lacking in evidence of happening, and out of scope. - MrX 🖋 13:25, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The sentence you refer to describes what was pledged at the summit. That is purely factual. In contrast, we don't know what is happening at the launch site. So far there is no sign of ICBMs being launched. If ICBMs are launched, I would support mentioning that in the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:41, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It's inconsistent with #Current consensus #37 and should be removed, along with any other content that is deemed to require it. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:14, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't know that for certain. The Australian source said according to "U.S. analysts" and the Center for Strategic and International Studies. These are the same sort of sources that mistook a drug factory for a nerve gas factory operated by al Qaeda, found WMD plants in Iraq and massive sophisticated caves carved out of the mountains of Afghanistan. TFD (talk) 21:37, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    According to this, its a space launch site, that has never been used for ICBMs. I can't find any current information on the issue. It seems to have died away.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    This doesn’t seem like BLP material. Markbassett (talk) 04:45, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Put it in..it`s relevant.2600:1702:2340:9470:74B8:581:10A1:5F2E (talk) 17:07, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I have removed it as there is clear consensus against it.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:24, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    +1 more to remove for the record - thank you, Jack Upland. --Day late — $ short 19:52, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Entering North Korea

    I think we should consider adding Trump's entry into North Korea to the lead. It's a pretty historic event. - MrX 🖋 16:01, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    We should wait and see how this develops. Too soon for the lead right now. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Why, do you think he's going to take 20 more steps? This has literally never happened before.- MrX 🖋 16:14, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Summit? G20 Summit - check; Moon-Trump summit - meh (Reuters seems to be the only source to have called the meeting in Seoul a summit in a 4-sentence news brief picked up by the NY Times). As far as I can tell, not a single source called the Trump-Kim meeting in the DMZ sandbox or the one-hour, behind-closed-doors, one-on-one talk a summit. For all we know, they were discussing Rodman. Also, the article on the "DMZ summit" seems to have been copied extensively from a few CNN articles - haven't had the time to compare at length but saw quite a few matches. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:54, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    One short sentence in the paragraph about North Korea would keep things timely. — JFG talk 09:34, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    A short sentence would be appropriate, as it is a notable historical event. PoliceSheep99 (talk) 18:43, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
     Done (not in lead) — JFG talk 12:32, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Accelerating nuclear program

    However, North Korea accelerated their missile and nuclear tests leading to increased tension.[1]

    Sources

    1. ^ Kennedy, Merrit (April 17, 2017). "Pence Tells North Korea: 'The Era Of Strategic Patience Is Over'". NPR. Retrieved April 19, 2017.

    The source does not say that North Korea accelerated their nuclear weapons program, but rather indicates that by 2017 it had become a direct threat to the USA. The North Korea and weapons of mass destruction article indicates that North Korea's progress has been steady since their first nuclear test in 2006. The source also suggests that Trump was deliberately increasing tension as a negotiating tactic. I think it would be better to document what happened, rather than try to interpret it. In any case, any text should reflect the source, not an editor's opinion.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:57, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed. North Korea had made steady progress both on nuclear technology and on missile/satellite delivery. By 2017 they were demonstrating their achievements in a threatening way, notably by firing ballistic missiles over Japan and towards Guam. — JFG talk 02:30, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I have removed this sentence. The text as it now stands mentions North Korea developing ICBMs and the supposed threat to Guam. This is factual and makes the necessary point. It also aids the aim of shortening the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:01, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately the text has now be altered to suggest that North Korea did not develop ICBMs. This just seems to me to be wishful thinking. Rex Tillerson confirmed that they had.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:01, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This is off-topic for his BLP (thx again for removing, Jack). It belongs in North Korea and possibly include some mention in Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration. Atsme Talk 📧 19:59, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    "surprise victory"

    I propose that in the lede sentence "He was elected president in a surprise victory over Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, although he lost the popular vote," the word "surprise" be changed to "upset." The word "surprise" is subjective and potentially inaccurate (for example, many diehard Trump supporters were not 'surprised' by his victory), while "upset" is more objective and better represents the fact that most polls prior to the election had Clinton as the winner. Vrrajkum (talk) 18:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Agree. It was a surprise to Clinton supporters, but it basically followed the template started in the 2000 election. Both parties were fairly evenly divided and the result hinged on turnout. TFD (talk) 19:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Trump tells Wisconsin: Victory was a surprise “So I go and see my wife. I say, ‘Baby, I’ll tell you what, we’re not gonna win tonight...So now the polls just closed, and they start announcing numbers,” Trump said. “And I say, ‘Oh, this is gonna be embarrassing.’" soibangla (talk) 22:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Soibangla: So the victory was a surprise to Trump; that doesn't mean that a third-party, encyclopedic reference like Wikipedia should characterize the victory itself as a surprise in such unambiguous terms. Vrrajkum (talk) 23:13, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I am refuting the statement "It was a surprise to Clinton supporters," when it was also a surprise to Trump himself. And "it basically followed the template started in the 2000 election" ignores a certain two-term president in the interim. soibangla (talk) 23:19, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Upset implies an overwhelming victory which it was not.2600:1702:2340:9470:39FE:F463:C771:A7BB (talk) 23:34, 2 July 2019 (UTC)Note:this user has made few to no edits to other pages.[reply]
    It was an upset victory. Almost no mainstream media outlets were predicting his victory, yet here we are. Upset victories do not have to be landslides, they just have to be very unexpected. Mgasparin (talk) 01:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Soibangla:, I don't think you are reading the Politico article correctly. Trump thought he would win until the exit polls came out at 5 o'clock, which surprised him since he had received large crowds at his rallies. "Trump recalled asking what the problem was and conceded that he “really assumed I lost” because, despite his constant rant against “phony” polls, he thought they [the exit polls] had some credibility." On the other hand, what Trump says depends more on what he wants to convey at the moment than what actually happened. TFD (talk) 01:41, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    The point is that even at the 11th hour, everyone thought he would lose, including him. A startling admission, actually. soibangla (talk) 02:35, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep “Surprise victory” ... nothing here to motivate shift in a long-standing phrasing, previously discussed in archives 5, 31, 43, 60, 65, 83, 85, 98 .... Stated in 85 from how an overwhelming majority of reporting covered it, and the mildest phrasing per PEACOCK. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:14, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Keep it.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:58, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree.--2600:1702:2340:9470:B1FE:4C4D:DEFC:E186 (talk) 14:05, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup. Keep existing "surprise" wording, please. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. Surprise is what most sources said, and we follow the sources, not our own opinions. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:20, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I would prefer something like unanticipated or unexpected rather than upset. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:26, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    That would be better.2600:1702:2340:9470:B1FE:4C4D:DEFC:E186 (talk) 22:14, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Should we simply call Trump a dark horse candidate?: "a contestant that on paper should be unlikely to succeed but yet still might.[1]" Dimadick (talk) 10:18, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    1. ^ "Dark horse". Merriam Webster.
    Perhaps we could call him the orange stallion?--Jack Upland (talk) 17:49, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Not seen much mention of a "dark horse" in contemporary sources about Trump's candidacy; "orange clown" was a more widespread description indeed.[FBDB] — JFG talk 12:34, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Exercise

    On July 4, JFG added the following to Health and lifestyle:

    He has called golfing his "primary form of exercise",[1] although he usually does not walk the course.[2]
    Sources

    On July 5, I reverted it, replacing it with Option D from this recent discussion Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 100#Exercise. (Three editors MelanieN, Scjessey and I support that option.) On July 6, JFG added his preferred version again without discussing it on the talk page.

    Here are the options and sources from Starship.paint from the previous discussion:

    Sources
    • WaPo The Washington Post’s 2016 biography of the president, which noted that Trump mostly gave up athletics after college because he “believed the human body was like a battery, with a finite amount of energy, which exercise only depleted.”
    • CNN 2019 "Nearly a dozen White House officials and sources close to Trump said they don't believe he's set foot in the fitness room in the White House residence, maintaining his view that exercise would be a waste of the energy he has always touted as one of his best attributes."
    • NYT 2015 Trump said he was not following any special diet or exercise regimen for the campaign. "All my friends who work out all the time, they’re going for knee replacements, hip replacements — they’re a disaster" he said. He exerts himself fully by standing in front of an audience for an hour, as he just did. "That’s exercise."
    • ABC 2018 White House Doctor Ronny Jackson: "Some people exercise, some people don’t. Some people just haven’t done that as part of their routine. And I would say that’s the category he falls in right now" and same source: But there’s one form of physical activity with which Trump is closely associated: golf.
    • Reuters 2018 - Trump: "I get exercise. I mean I walk, I this, I that ... I run over to a building next door. I get more exercise than people think ... A lot of people go to the gym and they’ll work out for two hours and all. I’ve seen people ... then they get their new knees when they’re 55 years old and they get their new hips and they do all those things. I don’t have those problems" He gets exercise by playing golf, he said, even though he typically rides around the course in a golf cart. Walking would leave him on the course longer than he prefers, he said. "I don’t want to spend the time." starship.paint (talk) 00:27, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option A: Trump plays golf, but reportedly views exercise as a waste of finite energy.
    • Option B: Although Trump plays golf, White House Doctor Ronny Jackson said in 2018 that Trump does not have a exercise routine. Trump has said that people who regularly exercise would require orthopedic surgery at his age.
    • Option C: White House Doctor Ronny Jackson said in 2018 that Trump does not have a exercise routine. Trump does play golf, and to save time, favors using a golf cart over walking around the course.
    • Option D: Trump does not exercise, viewing it as a waste of energy.
    • Option E: Trump plays golf but otherwise does not exercise, viewing it as a waste of energy.
    • Option F: Trump plays golf and favors using a golf cart over walking around the course. He otherwise does not exercise, viewing it as a waste of energy.
    • Option JFG: He has called golfing his "primary form of exercise", although he usually does not walk the course.

    I object to JFG's edit which does not represent the consensus from that discussion. Also, it's poorly-sourced, Trump himself being the source.- MrX 🖋 11:50, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Primary sourcing is fine because of the attribution to his own words: He has called golfing his "primary form of exercise". That does not express an opinion about whether his golfing is or is not proper exercise. If I were 73, I'd probably do even less exercise. Sad for me! Also, the discussion referenced in archive 100 had no consensus, so I'll remove your preferred wording for now, and we can see whether any consensus comes out of this new discussion. — JFG talk 11:02, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Primary sourcing for such a claim is not fine. It's right there in policy: WP:ABOUTSELF: "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;"- MrX 🖋 15:02, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not exceptional to say that a weekly game of golf is a form of exercise for a 73-year-old fat white male. — JFG talk 16:15, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems like B or C wold be the best as they clear attribute it to Dr Ronny Jackson. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:39, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • B - not sure why we have to include any of it. All we need is the summary of his health by the official WH doctor who examined him. He has not had one health incident since he's been in office that would justify concern. The rest is trivia in an already too long BLP. Atsme Talk 📧 12:44, 6 July 2019 (UTC) Adding - Option D is inaccurate and misleading - walking is exercise, golfing is exercise, climbing up and down the stairs of Air Force One is exercise. Option D needs clarity - Trump does not participate in any exercise programs; he considers it a waste of energy. He does play golf and is frequently on the move in his role as president. 18:21, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't forget tweeting, which exercises his thumb muscles and arm folding which totally gives his deltoids a workout.- MrX 🖋 15:02, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Consensus can change. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:24, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Emir of Wikipedia: Obviously, but this was decided around 5 minutes ago, and so having the discussion so soon after it was already decided is just disruptive. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:42, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Except it's not a "fact". A fact would be: "Trump rides around on golf carts and then claims that golf is exercise". As we know, he's lies about almost everything, so his claim about himself is not credible at all. I assume that's why you had to strain to find sources to support such fringe view. (I mean really, Trump's tweet?)- MrX 🖋 14:51, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again, there is no "view" in my version: it just states what Trump claims to be exercise, and it states that he "does not walk the course", which acknowledges that it's not what doctors would call exercise. I fail to see why you're so exercised about this minor issue. — JFG talk 16:15, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Golf is exercise, cart or no cart. So he does about 2 miles of intermittent walking instead of 6 miles, if walking the course is even an option. (Some courses require carts.) It's still a sport and Trump is reasonably good at it. His tweet was reported as factual by coverage such as Washington Post, MSN, SFGate... Just seems like simple mundane facts, about normal or maybe a bit above average for his age. Seems silly to be trying to make it out to be lying or somehow scandalous or something. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:48, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Rape lawsuit and affidavits

    I propose that we link to the Donald Trump & Jeffrey Epstein Rape Lawsuit and Affidavits alongside describing Labor Secretary Alex Acosta's plea bargain offer allowing Epstein to avoid jail time for the alleged sexual abuse of, "nearly three dozen girls, mostly 13-16 years old, at his Palm Beach mansion from 1999 to 2006," when he was alleged to have used the girls and staff to help recruit other young girls, sometimes booking "three or four girls a day." I propose that this information be added to the "Hush payments" section, because of mainstream news reports such as this, and the plea bargain terms. EllenCT (talk) 07:49, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    At this point it's Trump guilt by association with Epstein (old news) and Acosta (new news), with no shortage of innuendo. Wait for more. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:50, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Not for this article. You might ask at the allegations article, but the October 2016 case just before election was viewed with suspicion by the major RS and did not get coverage, as contrasted to actual tapes and people willing to appear in public allegations. This gets mentioned occasionally in TALK, but seems a fringe item. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 11:43, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree this is not ready for "primetime" yet, but the notion that it is a "fringe item" is ridiculous. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:29, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It’s not part of mainstream or WP:MAINSTREAM, and I would advise against running the question thru yet another time after many rejections. At most it would seem another in the Allegations article. But if you want to rerun the question here yet again, you can. This morning’s story du jour was Bill Clinton alleged involvement — all just SPECULATION as far as I see. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Clinton has nothing do with this..he`s not president trump is..please add the links...the information is relevant.2600:1702:2340:9470:1903:7553:C980:E8BE (talk) 16:12, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Bassett, Laura (July 11, 2019). "When Does America Reckon with the Gravity of Donald Trump's Alleged Rapes?". GQ. Retrieved 12 July 2019. EllenCT (talk) 04:13, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Budget deficit

    Why isn't the rapidly growing federal budget deficit mentioned in the introduction? Isn't that quite an important thing to mention? I can't add anything myself because the page is protected, so maybe someone else could add this. --Pjoona11 (talk) 14:32, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Since this concerns administration policies that are less biographically significant, it is covered in Presidency of Donald Trump. Also, it's hard to find mainstream media coverage to use as references because nobody ever talks about deficits and debts when Republicans are in charge. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:01, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I`d like to know why are my posts here are being taking down and who is doing it ? I wasn`t aware that I was writing anything controversial or against the rules..it seems that everyone is ignoring the deficit as though it`s not important..it appeared to be important before the election. 2600:1702:2340:9470:1903:7553:C980:E8BE (talk) 16:20, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The debt surged a decade ago due to an historic economic crash that caused revenues to plummet and triggered automatic stabilizers for spending. Now we have "the best economy in history," which should be resulting in lower deficits and slower debt growth, but instead we have this. soibangla (talk) 18:06, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Improve the Recognition subsection

    The political bias of Wikipedia is easy to see even in the Recognition subsection of the article. This political bias can be seen quite easily in almost any politically-charged article: Whenever the article is about a person, group or movement that the extreme left likes, any negative aspects or controversies about said subject will almost invariably be sandwiched between positive traits and adulation. Conversely, whenever the article is about a subject that the extreme left hates, any positive traits will be sandwiched between negative traits, controversies and criticism. This is the sandwiching tactic: To soften the blow, sandwich criticism between positive attributes. Conversely, to diminish accomplishments, sandwich it between negative traits and criticism.

    This subsection is no different. It's titled "Recognition", yet immediately starts with a statement against the person. And almost hilariously, the very last words in the subsection are "Vladimir Putin". It couldn't be clearer what the perception and mental image that the section is trying to convey is.

    You cannot justify this sandwiching tactic with sources. It's deliberate bias by Wikipedia editors. Editors are the ones who decide what is and is not included in such a section, and in which order. You cannot argue for this tactic with your "we are being neutral, this is what the media is talking about" excuse. I would suggest rewriting this section without the bias and the agenda, to be more neutral in tone. Wopr (talk) 09:16, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Rather than complaining about an alleged "agenda" of your fellow editors, why don't you suggest actionable changes to the section you dispute? The only way to improve an article is to suggest improvements (or even boldly apply them). — JFG talk 09:41, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I've made some updates. Should be more balanced now. — JFG talk 10:22, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It's indeed a bit better now. Credit where credit is due. Wopr (talk) 10:26, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually never mind. Even if we had such an anti-sandwich rule it wouldn't apply to Donald Trump, since he loves meatloaf sandwiches and lots and lots of burgers. R2 (bleep) 17:26, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Edits in "Racial views" section

    As part of a general effort to trim the article, Onetwothreeip recently made some changes to the "Racial views" section,[12] which were reverted by MrX on the basis of "I do not agree".[13] I feel that the changes were useful and proportionate, especially the trimming of excessive citations, therefore I have restored them.[14] I also feel that this section could be further trimmed yet. Readers who want more detail can refer to the main article Racial views of Donald Trump linked at the top of the section. Let's discuss. — JFG talk 09:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think there has been any substantial changes in the section, only some copyediting and trimming excessive citations. I agree that the section's written content can be trimmed, and that is as true of this section as it is of most sections in this article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:53, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    We should not remove sources for such a contentious claim. Removing NYT and leaving Vox seems to be a recurrent theme with these bold edits. In a couple of weeks, there will be editors (with a single character for their user page) complaining that Trump is not a racist because of biased sources, etc, etc. Trump blaming Clinton is important, and has been discussed previously. The section does not need trimming. Other sections probably do. This material needs to be restored. - MrX 🖋 10:52, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Every contentious claim remains sourced. While I consider The New York Times to be a better source than Vox when all else is equal, sometimes the content is simply more relevant to a Vox reference than a New York Times reference. We do not need to give in to hypothetical disgruntled editors by adding more sources when the sources we already have are more than sufficient to verify the material. It's important to note that this article is not actually calling Trump racist, it is reflecting that certain things he has said and done have been considered racist, and that these considerations are notable.
    The New York Times is the U.S. newspaper of record. They have the most credentialed, most reputable newsroom in the country. I oppose the removal of references to the Times on a WP:CITEKILL basis other than under exceptional circumstances. The "relevance" of content to a source really doesn't matter. When choosing among reliable sources, we should choose the most reliable ones that support the content. R2 (bleep) 17:36, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you outline what material you believe has been removed? My edits were mostly copyediting and trimming citations. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    And after restoring 123IP's changes, I strived to further improve the text. Nothing substantial has been removed, just moderately rephrased and slightly trimmed. Editors can keep going from here. — JFG talk 19:57, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Consensus material removed

    The Four Deuces improperly deleted material that has consensus for inclusion, discussed here. This material should be restored. Oh, and it doesn't violate WP:WEASEL.- MrX 🖋 11:05, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    If I recall correctly, that paragraph came from another article that was merged into here. There are three major issues here. First of all, we should give more careful consideration to how we actually discuss Trump's mental health, if at all. Secondly, we don't need to be talking about some petition from the public about his mental health. Thirdly, his comments such as "very stable genius" are clearly added to the end of that paragraph for non-neutral purposes. Onetwothreeip (talk) 12:04, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It does not appear that The Four Deuces and Onetwothreeip participated in those discussions leading me to conclude that a formal Rfc may be needed to bring in outside voices as well as the regulars here to properly determine concensus. For the record, I think the changes made by Onetwothreeip are much better and more neutral.--MONGO (talk) 12:43, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    They can propose a new consensus if they like, but for now the current consensus stands. It needs to be restored.- MrX 🖋 13:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The text begins, "Numerous public figures, media sources, and mental health professionals have speculated that Trump may have mental health issues. The most common diagnosis cited is narcissistic personality disorder [NPD], some cite delusional disorder; some suggest early dementia." We could also say that numerous scientists dispute global warming or some scientists claim aliens have landed. While true, it implies a higher level of support than actually exists. But Allen Frances, who chaired the task force that defined NPD, says that Trump "may be a world-class narcissist, but this doesn't make him mentally ill, because he does not suffer from the distress and impairment required to diagnose mental disorder."[15] Most mental health professionals of course will not disgnose a person they have not examined. So I see this as a BLP violation. TFD (talk) 14:41, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear..it IS a BLP violation, even for a public figure. But I still say a formal Rfc is mandatory.--MONGO (talk) 15:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe we could discuss it first. I don't necessarily mind that we mention that some mental health professionals consider Trump mentally ill, if sufficient weight exists, just that it is presented as an undisputed finding. I think that first we need to determine the extent to which the assessment is accepted, and how unusual it is for a U.S. president. I suspect that a lot of them - from both parties - would have scored high on personality disorder scales. TFD (talk) 16:19, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    With the multitude of good quality reliable sources available, it is hard for me to see how this could possibly be a violation of WP:BLP, a policy with which most of us are intimately familiar. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BLP says, "Material about living persons...must be written with the greatest care and attention to...neutrality." You have only presented the opinion that Trump is mentally disturbed and senile. In order to meet weight you need to establish that is a consensus view among mental health experts and that no other opinion exists, except on the fringe. Your use of the term "multitude" is weasel-wording, since it implies there is a consensus for these views, yet does not explain the relative weight of these views. For example, the number of people who donated to Swalwell's campaign is higher than the number of mental health professionals who diagnosed Trump, but that does not mean that relatively speaking he had much support. TFD (talk) 17:22, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    User:The Four Deuces - I’m thinking mental health allegations just aren’t WP:MAINSTREAM. The main cites shown seem a ranty book The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump and an online survey, and a cute tweet snip responding to Fire and Fury assertions he’s stupid which is off topic of mental health. I just expect authorities in the field regard armchair diagnosis as unethical and unreliable so do not do it. That a narrative is going around is sure. But it seems like much of it may be Tabloid stuff or partisan Smear campaign. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:46, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Markbassett, that's basically my position as well. The idea that a psychiatrist can diagnose someone that they've never examined is not a mainstream view, and in fact, is considered unethical, dangerous, and inaccurate by the profession. It's not the purpose of Wikipedia to give a platform to these kinds of views. Cosmic Sans (talk) 18:58, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Armchair" psychiatric diagnoses such as these are, by their very nature, fringe opinions. The APA, which is the largest and most authoritative organization for psychiatrists, has made it clear that "a proper psychiatric evaluation requires more than a review of television appearances, tweets, and public comments. Psychiatrists are medical doctors; evaluating mental illness is no less thorough than diagnosing diabetes or heart disease... The Goldwater Rule embodies these concepts and makes it unethical for a psychiatrist to render a professional opinion to the media about a public figure unless the psychiatrist has examined the person and has proper authorization to provide the statement." [[16]] In simpler terms, these kind of armchair diagnoses are junk science and do not belong in a BLP. Cosmic Sans (talk) 17:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't matter what the APA says. We go by what reliable sources say, and we have oodles of them to draw from. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:59, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It does, though. The fact remains that "armchair" diagnoses are considered junk science by the most authoritative organizations out there. This obviously raises WP:DUE concerns, as we have a massive paragraph which legitimizes a type of diagnosis that is not considered valid by the profession. In fact, it doesn't seem to note anywhere that this is not considered a valid diagnosis. Perhaps such a thing should be added. In any event, it's quite a lot of space devoted to junk science. On top of that, BLP concerns are raised because it implies that these conditions make Trump "dangerous", to use the wording of the material. Cosmic Sans (talk) 18:14, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Scjessey, the APA is the reliable source though. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:29, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Not this again! We have discussed this here, at length, at least twice in the past month. Including something on this subject is the consensus here, twice, in addition to the consensus at AfD that the material from Health of Donald Trump should be merged here, carefully and respectfully, which is what the final paragraph does. I am getting sick and tired of people removing consensus material just because they don't like it. We could have a new discussion, of course, but it would be necessary to ping all the people who commented at the previous two or three discussions; if we are going to be hashing out this issue again and again, it's not fair to exclude their opinion just because they thought it was settled and moved on. Meanwhile I am going to restore the paragraph, and it should stay until consensus - not just a few people, but consensus - overrules the previous talk page discussions and the instructions at the AfD, and says to remove it. --MelanieN alt (talk) 18:09, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Agree. I have no strong feelings about this except that the existing consensus should be respected. R2 (bleep) 18:14, 10 July 2019 (UTC) The content should be restored and this discussion closed, unless there's something really new or groundbreaking. This seems exceedingly unlikely given how recent the consensus was. Editors who take issue with the consensus can pursue dispute resolution. R2 (bleep) 18:20, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Melanie..its not just a few folks...I see multiple editors removing it and chiming in now that did not participate in the earlier discussions. Restore if you must but we really should have a formal Rfc to invite all interested to participate and broaden the input of Wikipedians. With a formal Rfc at least there will be no way to reverse or edit war over the issue once a neutral admin closes that discussion.--MONGO (talk) 18:19, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Start an RfC then. The existing consensus stands until it changes. There is no rule that consensus can only be obtained via RfC on some issues, or that consensus outside of an RfC requires unanimity. R2 (bleep) 18:22, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    nonsense. There is no existing consensus as is clear from his thread. This is a BLP, and there is no way the paragraph should be included while such question marks hang over it. To me it looks like pure speculation, albeit well-sourced speculation. IMHO Wikipedia is not the place for that. I suggest you remove it again pending the promised RFC.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:25, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears that there are definitely more people against the inclusion of this material than there are for the inclusion of this material. Cosmic Sans (talk) 18:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The AfD result was merge, not delete. I'm prepared to discuss individual details, but I would strongly oppose outright removal of the content. Between the AfD and prior discussion here, there is ample consensus to address the issue in a relatively short paragraph buried deep in this article. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:58, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The AfD was for very selective merge, with caution about ‘armchair diagnosis’ - including that was not called for by AfD. The ‘armchair diagnosis’ or not is a purely a #36 topic, perhaps flawed and surely predictable that it was going to get discussed further. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:54, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I hear you saying that the AfD close largely left the specifics of what to include up to us on this page. That seems a fair reading of the situation, especially considering the closer's comments in this post-close discussion on the closer's UTP. The closer added that "small amendment" to the close only after being lobbied out-of-process by one or two editors, easily missed by editors who might have had other views of the situation. I doubt there's a hard policy against that—the closer would have cited it—but it fails my smell test. Any such post-close discussion should have taken place in plain view on the AfD page. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:46, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, my read was the AfD directed discussion and not specific content. Now #36 directs one of the five para resulting, but not specific wording or much in guiding principles. That there would be further debate and edits seemed inevitable and necessary to me. Unrealistic to think 6 days was enough, or that something debated umpteen times before would cease to be a topic now. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:01, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Consensus #36 has been listed since June 19 with no serious discussion about it between then and now. R2 (bleep) 18:32, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems odd that junk science would receive a paragraph in the article while the actual accepted standard would be relegated to a footnote. It would be like having a paragraph espousing climate change denial with a little footnote saying "by the way, all of the above is incorrect." Cosmic Sans (talk) 13:42, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem! With his stance on the climate, Trump is a well known science denier anyway! -- Scjessey (talk) 15:27, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine with me, make it open prose, but tell both sides of the Goldwater rule issue, as the footnote did. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:38, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - There was an amendment to the close of the AfD regarding the armchair diagnoses:

    Amendment to close: A small amendment per a request on my talk page: Given that many of the concerns here are about the reliability of medical information and whether "armchair diagnoses" by people who have not personally examined Trump are actually reliable, as well as more general gossip/unencyclopedicity concerns, the editors who carry out the merger should probably consider a very selective merge that only includes the good material supported by top-notch sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 3:35 am, 14 June 2019, last Friday (2 days ago) (UTC−5) (reply)

    There was also the BLPN discussion that said the armchair diagnoses was Coatrack. I support the proposal by MONGO to call an RfC. I suggest proposing whether (a) we keep the health section that was deleted, or (b) limit that section to include only a summary of the examining doctor's report. Atsme Talk 📧 05:08, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Why not, we RfC less significant things all the time. But the version including the non-examining MH professionals' opinions should include the Goldwater rule footnote that I referred to above. If the RfC simply refers to a status quo content, the footnote should be re-added first. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:52, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No objection to another RfC to give the deplorables another chance to stamp their feet, but I'll be arguing vociferously in favor of the text as decided previously that was well supported by reliable sources and was part of the original merge agreement. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:59, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    We can't just quote the Goldwater rule unless it is sourced to a secondary source that connects it to this case per synthesis and also it is implicitly accusing a group of mental health experts of failing professional ethics. It also ignores the main reason for rejecting these diagnoses, that they are unlikely. Trump passed the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, indicating he did not have the symptoms that prceded dementia.[18] And the psychiatrist who wrote the criteria for NPD says Trump does not have it.
    @Scjessey: before holding an RfC would you have any objections to noting in the article that other views exist?
    TFD (talk) 15:24, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI, this APA news release does connect the Goldwater Rule to the President. https://www.psychiatry.org/newsroom/news-releases/apa-calls-for-end-to-armchair-psychiatry Cosmic Sans (talk) 15:45, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I have restored the footnote for now. I do think a footnote is the best way to handle that issue but am open to other formats. I do agree that a formal RfC would the best way to reach a definitive conclusion on this - rather than three or four informal discussions, each participated in by different people, as is the current case. I am out of town right now; if no one has proposed an RfC by the time I get back I will start one myself --MelanieN alt (talk) 18:44, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Any RfC should ping all participants in the prior discussion as well as this one. R2 (bleep) 16:59, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that goes against Wikipedia:Canvassing - "Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions." In this case you would be canvassing editors from a group which voted in favor of one position. Editors are perfectly capable of following this discussion without being canvassed. TFD (talk) 18:41, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's explicitly allowed by WP:APPNOTE (notifications allowed to Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)), and if whoever starts the RfC doesn't do it, I will. R2 (bleep) 19:28, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That's how I read the contradictory, confusing, incongruent (i.e. typical) guidance. We spend as much time debating unclear process rules as we do content. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:16, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    R2, I stand corrected. But won't it be hard to identify and contact every editor who has participated in previous discussions on this and other closely related topics? You've got 101 archived pages to go through. TFD (talk) 05:27, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    (Either) an edit request or a grammar debate

    "He became the oldest first-term U.S. president,[c] and the first one without prior military or government service."

    This is incorrect, Barack Obama is without prior military service too.

    It should be changed to: "He became the oldest first-term U.S. president." 212.3.17.230 (talk) 09:05, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done - Read the sentence again and see Barack Obama#Legislative career for Obama's prior government service. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:10, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I've made a slight alteration to remove possible confusion about this. It is clear the IP address thought the quote meant that all other presidents had both military and government experience. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:17, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    And I've challenged that by reversion. I can't see adding an extraneous word to a sentence that has stood unchanged for years, with no more justification than a misunderstanding by one reader from Sweden (no disrespect to the home of the Nobel Prize, Jenny Lind, ABBA, and Swedish meatballs and massage). ―Mandruss ☎ 09:20, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You should withdraw that disgraceful and quite frankly confusing remark. You could have made whatever point you're trying to make without that. We should aim to write in the clearest way possible, and it is reasonable to act on instances where there is demonstrated to be a lack of clarity. If you object to "without either prior military or government service", I would accept "without either military or government service", as it can be assumed the service refers to the past. I would also change "service" to "experience". Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:45, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    "Or" implies "either". That's basic English grammar. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but we can make it clearer by changing a word. The burden is on us to present the information as clearly as possible, not on the reader. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:51, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, it is suboptimal writing to add extraneous words, and the "lack of clarity" has not been sufficiently demonstrated to justify doing that. If clarity could be improved without either the extraneous word or something equally undesirable, I'd have no objection. Note that the meaning of the preceding sentence was perfectly clear without the stricken word. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:59, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not extraneous to write a sentence that includes both "either" and "or", that is very standard. I'm not proposing to add any words though, just to change one word. Obviously the meaning of the word is not perfectly clear if someone has validly expressed confusion over the terms. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:11, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    We are now talking in circles, so it's time to wait for other comments. I've changed the heading to something perhaps more meaningful. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:19, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think you would have reverted it or paid much attention to it at all if it wasn't in the context of this edit request. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:21, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    And you would be wrong about that. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:24, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to agree. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the existing version of the sentence. It has been stable and well understood for years, after being carefully crafted for brevity and exhaustively discussed during its conception. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:52, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think there's anything wrong with it either, I just think it could be better, and without adding any words. Onetwothreeip (talk) 12:14, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a minor point, but I prefer Mandruss's version (the status quo) as well. Onetwothreeip's version is slightly more awkward in my view. I hope we can move on. R2 (bleep) 16:56, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    +1 for "status quo is fine" on this one. — JFG talk 20:00, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • CHANGE: The old version *is* ambiguous, the R2 version is a bit better, but small as it may be, I think at least trying (instead of arguing over whether to try) is the obvious better course.
    • Was: and the first one without prior military or government service.
    • R2: and the first one without either military or government service.
    • or?: and the first without any prior military or government service.

    Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:52, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    There's nothing ambiguous about using "or" without the correlative conjunction, as you would have to if there was a third object: "the first one without prior military, public, or government service." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:31, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    No need for “either”. The existing sentence is perfectly clear. MelanieN alt (talk) 13:58, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    GA nomination

    I have nominated this article for GA review,[19] given that it's been relatively stable thanks to the consensus process, and there are no obvious unaddressed flaws in it, apart perhaps from its length. Hopefully it has a chance of passing this time. Good luck to the reviewer(s), and rest assured that a large number of regular editors of all stripes will be happy to help iron out any perceived issues. — JFG talk 13:34, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    JFG, I noticed its nomination and came here because of it. In looking it over, I would be inclined to quick fail it. I would suggest it lacks stability as there's thousands of KB added/removed most days. This is a small percentage of this article (more on this in a moment) but large in terms of article stability sense. Also given its immense size I don't see how it passes GA Criteria 3B and given the extensive discussion this article has about splits and changes an individual GA reviewer is going to be ill suited to helping that discussion along. Either of these on their own would be enough to sink a normal nomination and both of these together are more enough, in this somewhat experienced GA reviewer's opinion, to quickfail. However, out of respect for you and the other editors who work hard on this article (and a general desire to not get embroiled in AP2) I will not be doing so. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:48, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:JFG - I think it will and should be quick failed ... Beyond just the lack of stability and frequency of issues resulting in reverts or asserted as edit wars or disruptive and always of a RFC in prospect, and always under sanctions. I think it has been up for GA before (e.g. archive 1, 55, 59) and nothing from those fails is obvious as a criteria completed. I think it’s maybe gotten less good in some ways of a writing & article sense - the article size/clutter is poor style and in GA terms just doesn’t stay on topic. About same at has citation needs and more need for cites to be full data like accessdate or publisher, and still seeing opinion pieces. It did move from C class long ago to B class as it no longer has banner tags and tons of citation needed tags. Keeping it half-decent despite controversy is an accomplishment ... but just doesn’t seem like a GA candidate. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:45, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not familiar with the GA process, but I'll just say that I think the failure to include that Trump led the birther movement in the lede is an unacceptable and an obvious blight on this article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:09, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • For someone who apparently has obviously mastered the art of conspiracy theories, it is no surprise that the birther claim is one of them. It technically already is covered in the lead, at "Trump has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency." Besides, neither the body of the Donald Trump article nor this article states that Trump "led" the conspiracy movement, though they do say that he was the leading proponent or the most prominent promoter of the consistently debunked theory (even the conservative National Review would admit that). Gamingforfun365 02:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • In many ways the article is "good" - the level of scrutiny and discussion that goes into every edit ensure it meets most of the criteria. Stability is an issue though, and as long as sections such as the above-discussed mental health section, which violates WP:BLP and WP:SPECULATION, are still there I don't see that it has much chance of meeting the bar for starred status.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:50, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Sources would also be a problem as the majority of the sources are daily news releases over journalistic or academic publications (Churnalism).--Moxy 🍁 17:59, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want to beef up the sourcing, I recommend: (1) Alan Abramowitz. 2018. The Great Alignment: Race, Party Transformation, and the Rise of Donald Trump. Yale University Press. (2) John Sides, Michael Tesler, Lynn Vavreck. 2018. Identity Crisis: The 2016 Presidential Campaign and the Battle for the Meaning of America. Princeton University Press. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:06, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be great....as we have a few sources that have retracted statements in them and a few with updates......copies for all to see. ..
    Alan I. Abramowitz (2018). The Great Alignment: Race, Party Transformation, and the Rise of Donald Trump. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-20713-2.
    John Sides; Michael Tesler; Lynn Vavreck (30 October 2018). Identity Crisis: The 2016 Presidential Campaign and the Battle for the Meaning of America. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-1-4008-8830-6.....--Moxy 🍁 18:15, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article is a million miles away from a GA level.--MONGO (talk) 08:33, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Barkeep49, Amakuru, and Moxy: What I'd like to see from experienced and uninvolved reviewers is what exactly are we supposed to do in order to bring the article to within a reasonable chance of passing a GA review? If the stability criterion is interpreted as "nothing of substance should have been added to the article for a while", then obviously that won't happen until Trump leaves office, and we can just sit on it for 2 or 6 years. Yet I feel that Wikipedia should be able to produce a "good article" on a currently active politician. When did Obama reach GA status, and how did that work? — JFG talk 08:50, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    One of the first things to fix would be the Wikipedia:Template limits problem. ....8 over the limit.--Moxy 🍁 13:30, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't believe the Obama article ever had a GA status, all I remember were many featured article discussions. But what I will say is that the article was featured during his time in office. I'm guessing active politicians can have good or featured articles provided there is at least some basic stability present. In Trump's case here, article stability can be a very difficult thing to accomplish. -Handoto (talk) 13:35, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This article is simply written in a very partisan, coatracking style. If you look at the Obama and Hillary Clinton articles, which are both much higher levels rated at Featured Article, they refrain from hyperbole, moment by moment coatracking of issues and have far better flow, grammar and substance. I fear Trump evokes too many strong emotions especially by those who despise him for this article to be qualified at this time. Anyway...the path to featured level traditionally means it first goes to peer review before it is nominated at FAC. The GAN process only needs the review of one person in most cases and while I respect the GAN process, it does not have the multiple reviewers and overseers that determine that the highest level criteria has been achieved. One example of a pass then fail then much later repass of the GAN process was at the article September 11 attacks, where only the passage of time allowed the article to achieve the stability it needed to sustain the GA rating.--MONGO (talk) 17:00, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur that the article is not GA, but the primary reason is the relentless drama emitted from this man on a daily, and even hourly, basis, that is absolutely unprecedented. It's almost impossible to keep up with all of it, which makes it difficult to curate adequately, and this is unique to the man. This has nothing to do with partisanship. soibangla (talk) 18:37, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Right! That maybe settles it then!--MONGO (talk) 20:18, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a GA nomination not an FA nomination. The "drama" from the latest hour or day do not necessarily need to be shoved into this article as soon as possible. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:46, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Economic policy

    The following paragraph was removed from the article in favour of one that had existed previously. 

    Economic growth has continued during Trump's term as president. To stimulate growth, his economic policies have largely centred around tax cuts and deregulation, which he has credited for economic growth as high as 2.9% in his second year, although rates of job creation and weekly earnings have been lower than during the four years preceding his presidency.[575] The unemployment rate has also continued declining, to below 4%, amid relatively low inflation,[576] while the Dow Jones Industrial Average increased 25.9% during Trump's first two years in office.[577]

    This was the paragraph that was restored. 

    The economic expansion that began in June 2009 continued through Trump's first two years in office, although it did not accelerate as Trump had promised during his campaign. Trump had asserted that a policy of tax cuts and deregulation would result in 3% annualized GDP growth, and perhaps much higher, but it reached a high of 2.9% in his second year, while the average growth rates of job creation and inflation-adjusted weekly earnings were considerably lower than during the preceding four years. Economists were nevertheless impressed with the continued strength of the economy nearly ten years into its expansion, as the unemployment rate continued declining, to below 4%, amid only modest inflation. The Dow increased 25.9% during Trump's first two years in office, the second best performance of any president since Gerald Ford, exceeded only by Barack Obama's 48.6% gain.[577][578][579][580][581]

    I tried to preserve as much as I can but the latter paragraph makes a number of encyclopaedic and factual errors which misrepresent economics. For example, there is little utility in characterising periods of expansions as simply periods between recessions, which is really all that can be meant by an economic expansion since June 2009. It is much clearer and more precise to simply say that economic growth has continue into Trump's presidency, and it also avoids the needless implicit and explicit comparisons to the previous president that are made in the latter paragraph. There is such imperfect language throughout that paragraph, but this gives an indication of what's happening.

    The former paragraph may not be the final version and may not be perfect, but goes a long way in presenting the content more encyclopaedically and less like an editorial analysis, and neither being promotional of Trump or Obama. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:26, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I have to agree. Opinions should be omitted as much as possible when presenting statistics. As such, statements like "Economists were wowed" and "Trump promised x, but that did not happen," as well as implying whose economy is better, are not acceptable. And of course, the latter paragraph is, as you said, excessively complicated and verbose, let alone POVy. Gamingforfun365 01:40, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The edit does not contain "opinions." soibangla (talk) 20:17, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that Onetwothreeip's edit is far superior and eliminates the editorializing found in the other version. A reminder though, this article is to be written in American English, so "centred" should be "centered". We can thank or cuss out Webster for this.--MONGO (talk) 01:58, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I did warn you that my version wasn't perfect! That is simply an inadvertent mistake on my part. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:13, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The edit does not contain "editorializing." soibangla (talk) 20:17, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Much prefer Onetwothreeip as better generally, drop opinions and etc, but think wording could be worked further. Suggest unrevert to newer version and Talk edits to that.
    I prefer the first clause “The economic recovery that began in 2009” for context, might even make it “The economic recovery from the Great Recession that began in 2009”. To only say ‘continued the recovery’ leaves an open question of from when.
    Agree drop the whole ‘he promised 3% and we got 2.9%’ pfft.
    Agree second line, reordered to “His economic policies have largely centred around tax cuts and deregulation to stimulate growth”
    Disagree with then comparing to the last 4 years of Obama. This is about a Trump economic policy or events in his term, not a contest.
    Agree with the line of unemployment below 4% and low inflation. Might mention unemployment hitting record lows in some areas.
    Agree with dropping economists opinion.
    Agree with dropping comparison of Obama stock market . Again, this is about Trump term, and not a contest. (Comparing 8 years to 2 ?.)
    Agree with mention of the stock market, but the major surge or Trump bump was an event and not about two years. Besides, we’re over 30 months now so a 2 year mark seems odd.

    Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:49, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    The problem with a recovery since June 2009 is that it implies the recovery is still ongoing. There is really no attempt in economics to determine when an economy has finally recovered in terms of economic growth, but the economy has certainly finished recovering since then. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:13, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    How is the recovery over if there is no attempt to determine when an economy has recovered ? 2600:1702:2340:9470:DCE3:E34F:A3DE:89F5 (talk) 17:12, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I am absolutely gobsmacked that you would say my edit is very poor in explaining economics and contains factual errors which misrepresent economics and then proceed to write that utterly nonsensical edit. This episode may be the most surreal experience I've ever had on Wikipedia. Just mind-blowing. soibangla (talk) 20:38, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    “The economic recovery from the Great Recession that began in 2009” The phrase would leave it ambiguous whether it was the recovery or the recession that started in 2009.
    Not really sure it should be in this article, or just the presidency one. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Onetwothreeip - OK, then "The economic expansion that began when The Great Recession ended in 2009" Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:37, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    The edit contains no "factual errors which misrepresent economics." soibangla (talk) 20:17, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • which he has credited for economic growth as high as 2.9% in his second year Readers ask: "is that number better or worse than he said it would be, due to his policies?" But the edit provides no guidance. Because "he has credited," it suggests he at least hit his promised number, but actually he hasn't. Shouldn't readers know that? Of course they should.
    Except that it did hit 3.1% this year, so yes the promised number was exceeded microscopically. But really, comparing back to a speech seems just a long stretch for some way to complain about good news -- whereas a proponent would point to an increasing trend during his term. I'd rather just state the fact of what it is and leave out the contortions and spincraft, thanks. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:49, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It hit 5.1% and 4.9% in two consecutive quarters of 2014. Did Obama have 3% growth? Of course not. GDP bounces around, one quarter means nothing. Here's the real data.
    • although rates of job creation and weekly earnings it's important to say the average growth rates, or else readers may (correctly) think you're inappropriately comparing two Trump years to the four years preceding him. "Rates" can (correctly) be interpreted as an invalid comparison, while "average growth rates" makes it clear it's a valid comparison. This, and the fact that it's inflation-adjusted earnings, needs to be made explicitly clear to avoid ambiguity.
    That's not the normal way the stats are given -- the unemployment is given in %, and the Jobs growth is given in thousands of jobs added (or lost). Some stories now cover that the unemployment is hitting record lows in some areas, but not seeing WEIGHT to a percentage of a percentage -- again, just state the number that is, not analysis numbers that are portraying it as a comparison or something. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:59, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    In fact, average growth rates are the way the reliable source presents the data. soibangla (talk) 00:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • the Dow Jones Industrial Average increased 25.9% during Trump's first two years in office Readers ask: "is that high or low? is it better or worse than during previous presidencies, or by some other benchmark?" They have no way to know.
    And still don't - because the Trump market rally began when he was elected in November 2016, which is why it is directly attributed to his being elected. There is some credit given to ones policies - but it takes the first year to get things in place and see some result, so that will be an after-presidency judgement. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:04, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You previously proposed counting only his first year market performance, excluding his second year when the market declined. Cherrypick much? soibangla (talk) 00:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I could go on, but I won't. You have said my edit is very poor in explaining economics and contains factual errors which misrepresent economics, when in reality your proposed alternative is demonstrably inferior, which I repeatedly demonstrated in the previous thread on this topic, but which you repeatedly pivoted from and changed the subject and did what you wanted anyway. Finally, what you and others have falsely characterized as editorializing/opinion is actually context, which is very commonly disliked and hence goes unmentioned by partisans when it doesn't make "their guy" look good. Alas, I see the usual suspects have now arrived to obfuscate the reality that there is not, in fact, any economic boom as Trump repeatedly asserts, and so I will not prevail in this discussion, so this is all I will have to say on this topic at this time. PS: I studied economics at the #1 econ program on Earth and I have decades of professional experience in this sort of analysis. And you? soibangla (talk) 21:45, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Readers ask: "is that number better or worse than he said it would be, due to his policies?" But the edit provides no guidance. That is only what you believe readers to be asking. We are not here to provide guidance on whether 2.9% is good or bad.
    it's important to say the average growth rates, or else readers may (correctly) think you're inappropriately comparing two Trump years to the four years preceding him. Unnecessary, as rates are already averages. I only kept the "four years" to maintain as much original meaning from your proposal as I could, so I would certainly be fine with removing that number.
    Unnecessary, as rates are already averages Not necessarily, and especially not for readers who are not economically literate. Be explicit. soibangla (talk) 00:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Readers ask: "is that high or low? is it better or worse than during previous presidencies, or by some other benchmark?" They have no way to know. This is not something that should be compared between presidencies at all, and shouldn't be directly attributed to any president either. Again you're pretending that readers are asking what you happen to want the article to say.
    Throwing out a number without some benchmark for comparison is nearly worthless. That's the only reason I compared him to previous presidents. Got a better way? Then use it. soibangla (talk) 00:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Some readers may very well want an editorial that compares Trump and Obama, or Trump as president and Trump as a candidate, but that's not the place for the highest level summary on economic policy. This is the first paragraph of the section and is only meant to introduce the topic. There is still plenty of criticism about him in the rest of the section. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:23, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You are effectively presenting a data table in prose. If you want to add a data table, you can do that. But we have an encyclopedic responsibility to provide readers with context and meaning of the data, not just a recital of noncontextual data points. soibangla (talk) 00:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump&oldid=906461702"