Jump to content

Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 102

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 95←Archive 100Archive 101Archive 102Archive 103Archive 104Archive 105

GA nomination

I have nominated this article for GA review,[1] 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)

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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
  • 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)
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)
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)
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)
  • This article is a million miles away from a GA level.--MONGO (talk) 08:33, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Right! That maybe settles it then!--MONGO (talk) 20:18, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
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)
I am not sure that stability is that much of an issue. The GA criterium #5 says it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. and to me it seems like while the article is frequently edited, the changes usually don't amount to much. I certainly wouldn't consider this article a quickfail at GAN. For comparison, the Barack Obama article was a FA for the whole duration of his presidency. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:02, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
It's a quick fail. For starters, it is subject to DS restrictions. Without the latter, it would have inline & section cleanup & NPOV tags, it would not be stable due to edit warring, it is way too long and full of speculation, accusations, non-NPOV inuendo & opinion, suffers RECENTISM, it's 106 kB (17067 words) "readable prose size" when > 100 kB "Almost certainly should be divided". Atsme Talk 📧 03:53, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

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) The rapidly growing budget deficit is due to entitlements. It has very little to do with Donald Trump. Go back and repeal the Federal Reserve Act, The Social Security Act, and Medicare and that will fix budget deficit. --Sandvol (talk) 13:56CDT, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Take a look. soibangla (talk) 19:01, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
That's a good example of how percentage use is misleading and simple measures should be used. You can have the first year a $ Trillion added to 4 Trillion is 25%; the second year a Trillion added to 5 Trillion is now 20%, the third year a Trillion added to 6 Trillion is now 15% -- a chart would give a misleading portrayal of that as decreasing. That dollar amount of debt went from $5.3 Trillion in Q1 2008 to $14.4 by Q4 of 2016 is not at all obvious. In any wording here (not suggested), the wording should be in direct measurement -- just like in Presidency of Donald Trump the numbers are all in dollars -- the deficit in dollars, the debt in dollars, the income and outlay in dollars. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)
  • 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)
    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)
    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)
    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)
  • 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)


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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

I didn't receive a ping, Markbassett, even though you mentioned my user name. What's this about online surveys? Before [2] 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)

Sorry, it's "petition" not "survey" ... I will fix it. Markbassett (talk) 02:25, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
None of those pings were sent—there was no signature in the edit that added them. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:54, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
User:Mandruss Thanks, I'll try to fix that. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:04, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
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)
It`s much too complex. 107.217.84.95 (talk) 18:40, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

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

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)

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).

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

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)

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)

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)
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)
MrX, it looks to me as if Mark removed [3] 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)
Yes, Markbassett deleted that sentence twice: [4][5] 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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)
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)
[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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
User:MelanieN OK, pick this up when you get back. I'll be interested to see if you find Trump using the phrase before 5 January 2018, but while I think you may be able to find some third party confusions by Google or some secondary mentions of it by Trump, it seems clear that wider use later does not change the origin -- similar to "alternative facts" for example. Pending any agreement to delete the whole, I will put in an intermediate edit from the selections above that keeps the phrase, and adds the Fire and Fury basis as a placeholder to pick up from. Again, the edit wanted was deleting down to one line for Dangerous Case "User:Atsme - ‘Reduce Dangerous Case to first sentence and wikilink to book’, OK, done." If you want to bump this to the mentioned separate discussion (or a RFC) remains an option, but I think it can be worked here. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:02, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Mark, as early as 2016 he was claiming that "I have one of the great temperaments. I have a winning temperament."[6] You went ahead and tied that January 2018 comment to Fire and Fury, but that creates a false impression as if it was the only time he ever said that and only in response to allegations. I think we need to mention that he has repeated the "very stable genius" boast multiple times since then, spontaneously and not in response to anything. Like the third reference, which is from May 2019 and is NOT a response to Fire and Fury. The latest example was just last week.[7] -- MelanieN (talk) 17:04, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
User:MelanieN That ‘elected shows genius and stable genius at that’ is a response to Fire&Fury is just simple fact. Later reruns of “very stable genius” are not the origin. It also seems likely any such are of minor note so not having the WEIGHT of coverage that the first usage had. To say otherwise would be false history and not giving DUE proper prominence. For comparison, would you accept editing “alternative facts” to delete mention of Kellyanne [and instead give a portrayal that it was about a law case of 2019? Cheers [User:Markbassett|Markbassett]] (talk) 03:43, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

This section is effectively superseded by one below. Recommend we close it. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:29, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Staring down KKK supporter at Rally

  • I think this is pretty relevant given accusations that he is a white nationalist. Donald Trump stared down a protester wearing a t-shirt saying "KKK endorses Trump" before the protester was removed from the rally."Trump stares down man in 'KKK' shirt". CNN. February 27, 2016.The article seems to imply that it he is wishy washy against the KKK stating "After repeated questioning by reporters, Trump said that he disavowed David Duke and the KKK. Trump said on MSNBC's Morning Joe: "I disavowed him. I disavowed the KKK. Do you want me to do it again for the 12th time? I disavowed him in the past, I disavow him now." This shows him in action: "Disavowing" is a lot different from chasing someone off the stage. There is no synthesis since I am using CNN's headline?(talk) 04:21, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
A lot of them are nice people as well 2600:1702:2340:9470:11C:50E3:7342:D989 (talk) 05:13, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Neither CNN's headline nor the text says that the protester is a KKK supporter. The video from the Republican primaries is dated two days after Duke said that voting against Trump was "voting against your heritage," Trump failing to distance himself from Duke immediately and then claiming that he didn't "know anything about Duke." All I see in this video is an anti-Trump protester referring to that and Trump saying that back in the good old days he would have been removed much more quickly and violently. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 05:18, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
    • I wrote: "In 2016, Donald Trump stared down a protester wearing a t-shirt saying "KKK endorses Trump" before the protester was removed from the rally." Where is your evidence he is an anti-Trump protester?Patapsco913 (talk) 05:23, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
You called him a "KKK supporter" in the section title. Here's the full CNN story on the incident: CNN. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 05:40, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
And your point is? Did you even read my edit on the article?? That is the issue. Why not put it in the article and let the readers decide? You are the one doing the synthesis. What is your point, eh?Patapsco913 (talk) 06:00, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, if you put it that way, I guess my point is that you took a vague CNN teaser out of the context of their article and refuse to look at the evidence. The sign the "protester in the seats behind Trump" was holding read "Islamophobia is not the answer." It was ripped out of his hands by Trump supporters but before police arrived to eject him from the rally (that's what Trump was complaining about) he took off his jacket and revealed the T-shirt message and the yellow badge with "Mexican" written on it. Sheesh, really? You think that's ambiguous? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 06:40, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

What you are saying is exactly what we are not supposed to do (see Wikipedia:SYNTH). We stick with the facts. We do not read into them.... and if you go down the original research path...you really think Trump noticed someone over his shoulder with an "Islamophobia is not the answer" sign"???Patapsco913 (talk) 06:53, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
No. Putting it bluntly, I'm saying that you cherry-picked a factoid to support your bias and tried to insert it into the article. My "original research" consisted of reading RS (CNN and one you thoughtfully provided, i.e., Slate). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:14, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
It's pretty obvious that the man was an anti-Trump protester trying to embarrass Trump because the KKK supported him. (Trump's father coincidentally was a member of the KKK.) But it's not up to editors to determine that, but to reliable sources. You need to provide a reliable source that says the protester was a KKK supporter before we can say he was. TFD (talk) 07:07, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
My insert says nothing about being a pro- or anti-Trump supporter. I did not cherry-pick anything. Space4Time3Continuum2x what do you disagree with my edit exactly? I quoted exactly what CNN was saying. What I said in my insertion was "In 2016, Donald Trump stared down a protester wearing a t-shirt saying "KKK endorses Trump" before the protester was removed from the rally." How is that cherry-picking? My assertion for the title of this sub-heading was based on all the reliable sources I cited none of which stated the protester was anti-Trump. Since CNN implied he was perhaps anti-Trump (which none of the other sources cited), I picked a neutral statement for the article. TFD - what you are saying is obvious is original research, nay? "pretty obvious" is not how Wikipedia works and you have been around a long time. I did not say he was a KKK supporter...or did you not read my edit? (oh , if his father was a member of the KKK, why do you not add it to his wikipedia page?) Anyhow, I put the most neutral statement out there possible and every one is reading their bias into it. What is not neutral about what I wrote? Patapsco913 (talk) 09:15, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
No original research says, "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources." Obviously we can discuss whether the man was or was not a Trump supporter before deciding whether to include the story. What we cannot do is mention whether or not he was in the article, if the source does not say he was. Since you don't know whether or not he was a Trump supporter, there is no significance what his Tshirt said. TFD (talk) 16:21, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
The sources you cited above refer to the guy as a protester. Since it was a pro-Trump rally they didn’t have to spell out that he was an anti-Trump protester. The ref seems cherry-picked to me: a 100-second teaser intended to entice viewers to visit the website (which, incidentally, does not use the term "stare down"). The description underneath it is too vague to be a reliable source for anything, no matter what you or I think the video clip shows or confirms. The other sources you presented focus on something else (also mentioned by CNN but less prominently): Trump seemingly endorsing violence against protesters at his rallies. It was a minor incident, one of many, just another protester ejected from a Trump rally. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:56, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Do you know if the media ever followed up on the story to find out who the person was or what his reasons were for doing this? TFD (talk) 17:28, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
I didn’t even remember the incident, and it doesn’t seem to have been mentioned at all by any news outlets except briefly on the day it happened, including locally in Oklahoma City. The local NPR station's report has a photograph that shows what Trump was really doing near the protester: He was posing for pictures . Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:32, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

This is a nothingburger. What really happened: someone stood up behind him on the stage. Trump walked over and looked at him for "a few moments" until police took him away. There is no indication that their eyes even met, or that he thought of the person as a KKK supporter. He apparently assumed it was just another protester - which it probably was, considering the star of David the guy was also wearing. When he returned to the podium he complained that the guy would have been removed sooner if it wasn't for "political correctness". "Political correctness" would have applied if the guy was a protester from the left, not a supporter from the fringe right. It's clear he never did realize what the guy's angle was. Here's all that happened: he interrupted his speech to look at someone who stood up on the stage, then walked back to the podium complaining that the police should have acted sooner but were restrained by "political correctness". Apparently a myth later developed that he "stared the person down" or in some way indicated disapproval of a KKK message. His actions do not support that. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:52, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 July 2019

In the 2018-2019 government shutdown section, in this sentence: "On January 25, 2019, Congress passed and Trump signed a 3-week appropriation bill to fund the government while negotiations on border security funding took place. This ended the 31-day shutdown, the longest such shutdown in U.S. history." Where it says "this ended the 31-day shutdown," it was actually 35 days. Please change 31 to 35, as that is the correct amount of days.

Golfpecks256 (talk) 13:25, 29 July 2019 (UTC) Golfpecks256 (talk) 13:25, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing out the error. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:24, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)
The edit does not contain "opinions." soibangla (talk) 20:17, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Whatever. When I want to read about how the economy performed under Trump, I find statements like "Economics were nevertheless impressed" wasteful and literally uncalled for. The tone is such that it provokes a feeling of rhetorical sensationalism or influence—a stronger feeling relative to the former paragraph—and I thought encyclopedias were supposed to be "boring" and professional, not "fun" and rhetorical. I like how everyone (me included sometimes, admittedly) uses partisan politics instead of Wikipedia policies to handle controversial situations, and in seeing that discussing this more is not going to get us anywhere, I will move on. Gamingforfun365 06:31, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
The edit does not contain "editorializing." soibangla (talk) 20:17, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • 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)

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)
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)
There is different measures that one could use to identify the start or end of a recovery from a recession. In reality it's not as simple, and the economy gradually withdraws from what could be considered a recovery and transitions into an otherwise normal period. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:06, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
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)
“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)
Onetwothreeip - OK, then "The economic expansion that began when The Great Recession ended in 2009" Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:37, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

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

  • 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)
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. soibangla (talk) 00:27, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
In this case it means the sniping criticism from ~6 months ago is no longer true. Markbassett (talk) 20:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't know what that even means, but I do know you have previously made a point that Obama's GDP never hit 3%, despite hitting 5.1% in one quarter, but now that Trump is president you point to one 3.1% quarter to assert that he actually has hit 3%. soibangla (talk) 23:06, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Well since the subject is deleting the old 2.9 complaint, that it is not true *is* another reason to delete it. As for whatever your thinking was said in some other article, not recalled by me but not relevant to this article anyway. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 11:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • 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)
In fact, average growth rates are the way the reliable source presents the data. soibangla (talk) 00:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
WEIGHT of presentation is for unemployment % and job creation number in thousands that month. That one can find a source using furlongs does not make it the morm. Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 11:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • 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)
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)
Mmm. Actually the Trump stock market rally was circa 18 months starting in November 2016, so accuracy and coverage WEIGHT favors mention of that rather than yearmarks. One could state a year boundary, but then shouldn’t use event terminology like “rally”. A rally is an event however long it is, it doesn’t run on arbitrary January timetable. In any mention of yearmarks ... I’d say ‘first year’ has some lasting perspective, but that two-year was a transitory point now gone as we come up on third year. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 12:08, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
There is no "Trump stock market". Onetwothreeip (talk) 12:19, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Onetwothreeip That was "Trump stock market rally". The Trump + "stock market" would be a more mentioned and wider area of discussion than the Trump "stock market rally" event or the generic "Trump bump" for multiple momentary areas. An NY Times example was "'Trump Bump' Lifts Stocks, Giving President a Win for His First 100 Days". There are more recent expressions of “Trump Slowdown” (expect “Trump Slump”). It’s just the labeling in media. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:21, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

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)

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.
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
Extended back-and-forth between two users — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awilley (talk • contribs) 18:12, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Only the "economically literate" could be confused by comparing growth rates after 2017 and before 2017. This is simply not the place for benchmarks and comparisons, as others have explained to you here. Comparing statistics to previous presidents is just as worthless and provides no additional context at all, it's simply two data points instead of one. Clearly the consensus is not on your side here, so I would strongly recommend suggesting alterations rather than continuing to argue for your preferred version. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:49, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
The only way I can respond to that is to recite an extensive litany of errors and distortions and misrepresentations made by certain editors here, which might be interpreted as personal attacks, so I'm not going that way. This consensus is a farce, as you have just amply demonstrated with this edit. soibangla (talk) 00:54, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
You can choose to be constructive or you can choose to continue arguing. It's seriously misleading to say that the growth in 2009 and 2019 are the same, even if part of the same period of expansion. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:58, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Not the growth, the expansion. It's one expansion. You actually don't understand this? soibangla (talk) 01:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
You seem to keep implying here and on my talk page that I don't think the US economy has grown continuously since June 2009. What I don't understand is why you continue to make this implication. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:45, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm not implying anything. I'm stating that your statement, The economic expansion from June 2009 is not the same as the current economic expansion, is flatly, patently, categorically and unequivocally false. And you made that statement as a supposed example of your flatly, patently, categorically and unequivocally false assertion that my edit contained "factual errors which misrepresent economics." soibangla (talk) 01:53, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
There I am referring specifically to the expansion occurring within June 2009. There is nothing special about the expansion in June 2009 that makes it relevant to July 2017 or July 2019. It's simply the starting point for the current period of continuous growth/expansion. I don't think is getting us anywhere. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:59, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
You just twice asserted there was an expansion "within" and "in" June 2009, after saying it before on your Talk. These are not typos or errors. You simply do not know what you're talking about, and yet here you are lecturing me about economics. Just surreal. soibangla (talk) 02:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't intend on lecturing you or anybody. Regarding the actual month in 2009, I'm taking your word for it that it was June when GDP growth was first positive. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:12, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
You used these words about my edit to garner support for your change: very poor in explaining economics and contains factual errors which misrepresent economics. That's lecturing. And flatly false. soibangla (talk) 02:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
The comments were not directed at you so that can't be lecturing. Regardless, these remarks were not intended to be personal at all, they were simply describing the content and not you personally. We can instead say they are factual mischaracterisations if you wish. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:34, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
They are not "factual mischaracterisations," either. They are 100% objectively verifiable facts without a whiff of spin. That's why it remained unchallenged for weeks into months until you challenged it, despite 2644 editors watching what may one of the most intensely scrutinized pages on Wikipedia. This unnecessary drama has gone on far too long. Please stop now. soibangla (talk) 02:44, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
You're the one carrying on about this. I really don't see why you should be taking this so personally. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:56, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Here is the actual edit by Onetwothreeip. One of problems: this is not replacement as stated in the beginning of the thread. For example, Onetwothreeip removes phrase starting from "Through his first 28 months in office...". I do not see any reason why it should be removed. My very best wishes (talk) 13:49, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
We don't have to replace that phrase with this. I think that was added sometime between my original proposal and when I most recently replaced the paragraph. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:31, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
I just would like to re-confirm: there is no consensus for these changes. Where? Please start an RfC if you wish. My very best wishes (talk) 11:12, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
I can confirm there is indeed consensus here. The only editor who disagrees is Soibangla. You had reverted the replacement since I inadvertently removed another sentence that was since added to the original paragraph. To carry this out, the replacing will simply allow that sentence to remain as it is irrelevant to the discussion here. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:19, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Your "consensus" comes exclusively from two editors who are not exactly well-known for their neutrality on Trump matters, whereas your edit has been reverted by three editors whose neutrality has not been questioned. soibangla (talk) 22:59, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
At least four editors actually and reverted by two, and we don't cast aspersions on other editors. Otherwise your neutrality or anybody who may agree with you could just as well be questioned. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:11, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
I disagree. Additionally, the admin from whom you sought support to restore your version expressed substantial skepticism, and two editors, including one from your "consensus," have suggested you open an RfC. soibangla (talk) 23:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
It's a matter of record that four editors have supported the proposed paragraph, not an opinion. There is nothing wrong with scepticism of any proposal, and I welcome constructive dialogue and suggestions to further improve the paragraph. In no way do I intend my proposal to be the final version. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:43, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
You quite obviously attempted an end-run around your lack of consensus by soliciting an admin for support, but you clearly did not get it. Open an RfC and let's settle this for once and for all. soibangla (talk) 23:50, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
re: Economists were nevertheless impressed If we can't achieve consensus to pick one of the paragraphs, can we at least get rid of this weasle-y, uncited opinion? Galestar (talk) 23:30, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
That's a bad phrase for more than one reason and should certainly be removed. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:43, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
"Trump has asserted his economic policies have centered around tax cuts and deregulation..." would be a good alteration. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:17, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
That his economic policy is centered around tax cuts and deregulation is indisputable, so your proposed language is pointless. The existing language is meaningful because it explains what he asserted his policies would accomplish. soibangla (talk) 17:23, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

The four

I was reverted with summary "Appears to be very well sourced." I don't think any number of sources is sufficient for claims about what Trump had in his mind at a particular moment. wumbolo ^^^ 16:03, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it is mind-reading to figure out who Trump was talking about. I question though mentioning that white nationalists supported his comments, without explaining its relevance. TFD (talk) 16:14, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps this needs to be something else, but the sources do mention words by Duke as something significant ("Voting against Donald Trump at this point is really treason to your heritage"). My very best wishes (talk) 17:52, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
The section is called "racial views"; I did think a statement from a White Nationalist leader saying that "this is the kind of WHITE NATIONALISM we elected him for" was relevant. Open for discussion of course. Certainly his repeated attacks on these four women is relevant to the section - "Go back to where you came from is a longstanding racial insult, especially when applied to people who are not immigrants. And he has named all four of them, by name, there is no doubt who he was referring to. I read somewhere but can't find a source, that his tweet was initially inspired by a segment about the Squad (those four women) on Fox and Friends. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:11, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Gertz tweet, Rolling Stone Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 04:48, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
From the 30s to the 60s, the Communist Party was heavily involved in the civil rights movement and conservatives argued that the movement was part of a Jewish Communist conspiracy to subvert the U.S. Therefore all civil rights leaders were Communist stooges. To me, the reference to Duke implies something about Trump's policies without actually saying it. TFD (talk) 19:33, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
We can include implications like that from sources, provided the sources themselves are making the implication rather than us ourselves. Whether it's WP:DUE or not is another question, but I don't think it would be hard to find sources explicitly stating what they think it means. That said, if we did, I think the best way to go about it would be to find a good source that goes into detail on what's being implied here, then use an in-line citation to make it clear who's seeing this connection and what they think it means. The solution to concerns of vague aspersions is that sort of specificity. --Aquillion (talk) 05:08, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
No, Wikipedia articles cannot imply anything. Anything conveyed must be explicit. Implications are implicit synthesis. (David Duke supports Trump, Duke is a white supremacist, therefore Trump is too.) And per neutrality, opinions must be attributed in text, and articles should not express opinions, either implicitly or explicitly. TFD (talk) 22:32, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Through a glass darkly

WP:NOTFORUM. We sprinkle a bit of humor on this page, a Good Thing imo, but we don't dedicate threads to it. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:39, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Further to previous discussions, Trump has said that he prefers American wine to French wine, even though he doesn't drink; he just likes the way it looks.[8] Is there a word for someone who consumes alcohol by the eye? And is this a solution to the long-running mystery of Trump's alcohol consumption?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:52, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I do appreciate your sense of humour but I think we have enough to discuss. Onetwothreeip (talk)

Exercise

NO CONSENSUS
I discarded purely democratic votes, per Wikipedia is not a democracy. We really need at least some content-related argument.

MrX argued against option JFG because of primary sourcing. I'm discounting that argument because Trump's statement that golfing is his "primary form of exercise" seems neither unduly self-serving nor exceptional. It might be a little self-serving, but not unduly so. It might also be the opposite of self-serving, depending on how you read it.

Otherwise I see no clear connections to policy, giving me no objective basis to evaluate strength of arguments. So I counted !votes. After the aforementioned filtering, option JFG received the most !votes but, by my accounting, only 45% of the total !vote. Therefore I see no choice but to call this no consensus.

Re the previous discussion: It received significantly less participation than this one, and its leader, D, lost by a length (two !votes) in this one. Therefore I don't consider it significant regarding this issue. If folks want a consensus, I suggest a follow-on survey that includes only options D and JFG. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:59, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

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

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

  1. ^ @realDonaldTrump (July 14, 2018). "I have arrived in Scotland and will be at Trump Turnberry for two days of meetings, calls and hopefully, some golf - my primary form of exercise! The weather is beautiful, and this place is incredible! Tomorrow I go to Helsinki for a Monday meeting with Vladimir Putin" (Tweet). Retrieved July 4, 2019 – via Twitter.
  2. ^ "Donald Trump says he gets most of his exercise from golf, then uses cart at Turnberry". Golf News Net. July 14, 2018. Retrieved July 4, 2019.

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)
  • 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)

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)
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)
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)

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)

  • 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)
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)
Wikipedia:Consensus can change. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:24, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
@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)
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)
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)
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)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 August 2019

For education: Donald Trump attended Fordham University for two years before transferring to University of Pennsylvania – this should be noted in the infobox. Wharton is a school within UPenn. XXeducationexpertXX (talk) 14:56, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done – The infobox contents about Trump's education hava been decided by consensus. See #Current consensus, item 18, and links to the relevant discussions. — JFG talk 15:38, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Consensus #37 is being ignored

The article continues to exceed the template space limit and has been in that state for some time. The easy solution that would have permanently solved the problem was rejected, leaving #Current consensus #37 as the next best hope. But that consensus is being ignored.

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.

Editors continue to edit the Presidency section of this article the way they always have. When they see some significant new development, they drop in a new "On [date], [event] happened." Witness the latest example here.

This chronology treatment is not the "summary-level" referred to in #37. To comply with #37, the Donald Trump#Hush payments section (the section affected by the example above) needs to be rewritten to give a more general overview of the topic that needs less frequent update. I have the writing skills but lack the required thorough knowledge of the topic area; but I know there are editors who have both.

The same applies to many of the subtopics in the Presidency section. If we can't get clear agreement on the principle and editor commitment to spend some time on the rewrites, I propose that we cancel consensus #37 as pointless, setting a bad precedent, and a bit embarrassing. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

In some cases wilfully ignored, but in many cases passively ignored. Despite assurances, the excessive length of the article has not been sufficiently addressed, although there has been some good progress. We really should add the {very long} tag at the top of the article, not merely to highlight the issue so that editors may seek to address it, but to give this a strong priority so that editors in the normal course of editing are reminded not to be excessive. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:11, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
I think the very long tag was up before not so long ago but taken down. Problems is, even the spinoffs are crazy long now. Imagine after another 5.5 years?--MONGO (talk) 07:16, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
I also propose we remove Presidency of Donald Trump, Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019) and Mueller Report from the list of articles that we prefer editors to contribute rather than the main Donald Trump article. They are still included in the Donald Trump series which we also direct people to, but shouldn't be a primary destination. We should then consider adding other articles to the list, especially to replace those subject areas. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:37, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
In some cases wilfully ignored, but in many cases passively ignored. Ok then. If it's willfully or passively ignored by all editors, it needs to be canceled. I may been mistaken to assume that editors understood the intent of the proposal.
Was this excessive? No, it was only two more sentences that followed the long-standing pattern in that section and others. No tag is going to address that. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:42, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Hush payments

Donald Trump#Hush payments should be a single paragraph that directs readers to sub articles. While the matter was of great significance earlier in Trump's presidency, the sheer weight of his other actions and scandals has surely relegated its importance. This is certainly one of those areas that can be dramatically trimmed. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:06, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@Mandruss and Scjessey: - I can do two paragraphs. But I may have missed some denial regarding McDougal that isn't present in this article at the moment.

In 2016, before Trump's presidential election, his attorney Michael Cohen paid hush money of $130,000 to adult film actress Stormy Daniels, as well as $150,000 to Playboy model Karen McDougal via American Media Inc. In 2018, Cohen pleaded guilty to breaking campaign finance laws with the above payments, stating that he had made them with the intention of influencing the presidential election, and at the direction of Trump. American Media Inc. also admitted payment to McDougal to influence the election, with the company's CEO David Pecker having offered to catch and kill stories that might embarass Trump. The hush payments were made to silence two allegations: that Daniels had an affair with a married Trump in 2006, and that McDougal had an affair with Trump from 2006 to 2007. A lawsuit resulted in Trump and Cohen agreeing in 2018 not to enforce the non-disclosure agreement against Daniels.

Trump denied having an affair with Daniels or McDougal. In April 2018, Trump said that he did not know anything about Cohen paying Daniels, why Cohen had made the payment, or where Cohen got the money. In May 2018, Trump's financial disclosure for 2017 revealed that he had reimbursed Cohen for payments related to Daniels. In July 2018, a lawyer for Cohen released a September 2016 tape recording of Cohen and Trump discussing a plan to pay McDougal. In August 2018, Trump said that he hadn't known about the payments when they were made. Court documents published in July 2019 showed that the FBI believed Trump was directly involved in Daniels' hush payment based on calls he had with Cohen in October 2016, starting a day after Trump's Access Hollywood tape was publicized.

starship.paint (talk) 13:12, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: I think that's a huge step forward, thank you. I think you should do that as a bold edit after adding appropriate cites, and then we can deal with any challenges as to specific parts. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:23, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. It's good, and I have no objection to it being implemented immediately; however, I believe it can be shortened still further. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:45, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Awaiting the references...not sure why they cannot be added beforehand for evaluation.--MONGO (talk) 01:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
This is definitely better but I agree it can be shortened. The relevance of this to the article is that it constitutes a legal investigation with legal consequences, so this isn't the place to go into detail about Trump's sexuality. There can also be an improvement in encyclopaedic quality, so I offer the following with changes.

In October 2016, Trump's attorney Michael Cohen paid $130,000 to adult film actress Stormy Daniels, as well as $150,000 to Playboy model Karen McDougal via American Media Inc, in exchange for non-disclosure agreements regarding an affair with Daniels in 2006 and an affair with McDougal in 2006 to 2007. In 2018, Cohen pleaded guilty to breaking campaign finance laws with these payments, stating that he had made them with the intention of influencing the presidential election, and at the direction of Trump. American Media Inc also admitted paying McDougal to prevent the publication of stories that might embarrass Trump.

Although claiming he did not know about the payments, Trump's financial disclosure for 2017, released in May 2018, revealed that he had reimbursed Cohen for payments related to Daniels. In July 2018, Cohen released a September 2016 tape recording of Cohen and Trump discussing a plan to pay McDougal. Court documents published in July 2019 showed that the FBI believed Trump was directly involved in the payment to Daniels based on calls he had with Cohen in October 2016.

Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:48, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Even better! ―Mandruss ☎ 04:01, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
We also don't need the release of a tape, since we've established Trump indirectly paid McDougal. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:05, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
That's good tight prose, sticking to the essential facts. Thanks! — JFG talk 09:23, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. That's very good. You can join the two paragraphs together now. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:40, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
In fact, let me tighten just a tiny bit more:

In October 2016, Trump's attorney Michael Cohen paid $130,000 to adult film actress Stormy Daniels, as well as $150,000 to Playboy model Karen McDougal via American Media Inc, in exchange for non-disclosure agreements regarding affairs with Daniels in 2006, and McDougal in 2006 to 2007. In 2018, Cohen pleaded guilty to breaking campaign finance laws with these payments, stating that he had made them with the intention of influencing the presidential election, and at the direction of Trump. American Media Inc also admitted paying McDougal to prevent the publication of stories that might embarrass Trump. Although claiming he did not know about the payments, Trump's financial disclosure for 2017 revealed that he had reimbursed Cohen for payments related to Daniels. Court documents showed that the FBI believed Trump was directly involved in the payment to Daniels based on calls he had with Cohen in October 2016.

--Scjessey (talk) 12:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

In October 2016, Trump's attorney Michael Cohen paid $130,000 to adult film actress Stormy Daniels, as well as $150,000 to Playboy model Karen McDougal via American Media Inc, in exchange for non-disclosure agreements regarding allegations of Trump's affairs with Daniels in 2006, and McDougal in 2006 to 2007. Cohen pleaded guilty in 2018 to breaking campaign finance laws with these payments, stating that he had made them with the intention of influencing the presidential election, and at the direction of Trump. American Media Inc also admitted paying McDougal to prevent the publication of stories that might damage Trump's electoral chances. Although Trump denied the affairs and claimed he did not know about Cohen's payment to Daniels, his financial disclosure for 2017 revealed that he had reimbursed Cohen for such a payment. Court documents showed that the FBI believed Trump was directly involved in the payment to Daniels based on calls he had with Cohen in October 2016.

Some wording changes. Re-add Trump's denial of affairs... (has the right to denial in his own BLP.) There should also be mention that Cohen's payments were before election day? That's why they were campaign finance violations, because they were made before election day. starship.paint (talk) 13:34, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I'd tighten the prose a bit more, and add that Cohen recorded the calls:

In October 2016, Trump's attorney Michael Cohen paid $130,000 to adult film actress Stormy Daniels, as well as $150,000 to Playboy model Karen McDougal via American Media Inc (AMI), in exchange for non-disclosure agreements regarding their alleged affairs with Trump in 2006–2007. Cohen pleaded guilty in 2018 to breaking campaign finance laws, stating that he made the payments at the direction of Trump in order to influence the presidential election. AMI also admitted paying McDougal to prevent the publication of stories that might damage Trump's electoral chances. Although Trump denied the affairs and claimed he was not aware of Cohen's payment to Daniels, he reimbursed Cohen in 2017, according to mandatory financial disclosures. Court documents showed that the FBI believed Trump was directly involved in the payment to Daniels, based on calls recorded by Cohen in October 2016.

But can't we go edit the article directly now? — JFG talk 13:54, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  • FYI, "hush payments" strikes me as a very informal term for a section header. I think something less slang-y would be more appropriate, like "confidentiality agreements" or something of that nature. Cosmic Sans (talk) 14:06, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

More tighterer!

In October 2016, Trump's attorney Michael Cohen paid $130,000 to adult film actress Stormy Daniels, as well as $150,000 to Playboy model Karen McDougal via American Media Inc (AMI), in exchange for non-disclosure agreements regarding alleged affairs with Trump in 2006–2007. Cohen pleaded guilty in 2018 to breaking campaign finance laws, stating that he made the payments at the direction of Trump in order to influence the presidential election. AMI admitted paying McDougal to prevent the publication of stories that might damage Trump's electoral chances. Trump denied the affairs and claimed he was not aware of Cohen's payment to Daniels, but reimbursed Cohen in 2017. Court documents showed the FBI believed Trump was directly involved in the payment to Daniels, based on calls recorded by Cohen in October 2016.

-- Scjessey (talk) 15:10, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I inserted [9] JFG's version with the last sentence changed (because I haven't seen a source that said based on calls recorded by Cohen in October 2016. Anyone is free to add a source and change the wording accordingly. I also added the second last sentence. I didn't see Scjessey's version when I made the edit. starship.paint (talk) 15:27, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Now instituted the trim by Scjessey of the "reimbursed" sentence. [10] For documentation's sake, here it is. I'm not opposed to based on calls recorded by Cohen in October 2016 if a source can be cited for it. Note that the second last sentence is ‘new’. I missed such content earlier and thought it is significant when I just noticed it. starship.paint (talk) 15:40, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

In October 2016, Trump's attorney Michael Cohen paid $130,000 to adult film actress Stormy Daniels, as well as $150,000 to Playboy model Karen McDougal via American Media Inc (AMI), in exchange for non-disclosure agreements regarding their alleged affairs with Trump in 2006–2007. Cohen pleaded guilty in 2018 to breaking campaign finance laws, stating that he made the payments at the direction of Trump in order to influence the presidential election. AMI also admitted paying McDougal to prevent the publication of stories that might damage Trump's electoral chances. Trump denied the affairs, and claimed he was not aware of Cohen's payment to Daniels, but reimbursed Cohen in 2017. Federal prosecutors asserted that Trump had been involved in discussions on hush payments as early as 2014. Court documents showed that the FBI believed Trump was directly involved in the payment to Daniels, based on calls he had with Cohen in October 2016.

You're right: the FBI refers to call records obtained from a search of Cohen's iCloud account.[11], pages 10–12. I was referring to prior disclosures of calls recorded by Cohen.[12] — JFG talk 16:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  • There's no such thing as "non-disclosure payments" and, even if there were, it wouldn't apply to McDougal whose story was bought by the National Enquirer ostensibly for publication and then buried. The title should be something like Silencing accusers. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 05:02, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
The section isn't about the payments. It's about the legality of the payments. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:29, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Michael Cohen paid ... $150,000 to Playboy model Karen McDougal via American Media Inc (AMI), in exchange for non-disclosure agreements. Where is the source for that statement? The first ref (BBC) doesn't mention McDougal. Second ref (WSJ) is paywalled so I can only read the first paragraph and the first sentence and a half of the second paragraph. According to what I can read there, she sold her story to AMI for publication. And the cite 123IP removed (Politico) per overciting, said that, according to WSJ, she sold the exclusive rights to her story to AMI. I doubt that she would have signed an NDA, I don't know for sure but that doesn't matter since you need a ref to say that she did. AMI also admitted buying the story for 150 thou, and also that they made the payment to "influence the election" which is a violation of campaign finance law (NY Times). Cohen may have been the go-between between the parties, but according to the sources he had no hand in the payment or the contract between McDougal and AMI, and no source suggested that Pecker or AMI were reimbursed by Cohen or anyone else. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
    @Space4Time3Continuum2x: [13] here's one source. August 2016: Karen McDougal payment Mr. Cohen coordinated with the chief executive of American Media Inc starship.paint (talk) 14:10, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
    Eh, so here's the stuff with Cohen and AMI. Page 12/22 and 13/22 in the Cohen Information document (2nd document). [14]
    • 29. In June 2016: McDougal's attorney Davidson contacts AMI, who tells Cohen. Cohen promises AMI that he would reimburse them. AMI negotiates to purchase McDougal's story.
    • 30. In August 2016: AMI purchases McDougal's story for $150,000.
    • 31. In August/September 2016, Cohen signs a deal with AMI to buy AMI's story for $125,000, and creates a shell company to do so.
    • 32. In October 2016, with Cohen yet to pay the money, AMI tells Cohen the deal is off.
    Here's a detailed mainstream source. [15] starship.paint (talk) 14:23, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Continuing with the OR: On page 14/22 (item 31) it says that in or about early October 2016, after the agreement was signed but before COHEN had paid the $125,000, Chairman-1 [Pecker?] contacted COHEN and told him, in substance the deal was off and that COHEN should tear up the assignment agreement. COHEN did not tear up the agreement, which was later found during a judicially authorized search of his office. No idea what that means (AMI agreeing to buy story for $150k, Cohen agreeing to reimburse $125k, Pecker paying $150k without expecting reimbursement), but we're not supposed to draw our own conclusions from OR. WSJ article is paywalled, so I can’t read it. The sentence you cited just says that Cohen "coordinated," and AP (via Chicago Tribune) that Cohen and Trump "arranged" the payment. My edit was fairly bland—who paid how much to whom, not why. Haven’t gotten around to the third paragraph. This is still a developing story as the judge in Cohen’s case ordered the unredacted release of investigative material a few days ago. The material is expected to be released tomorrow, according to the NYT, so we'll probably get some RS reporting on it in the next few days. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:47, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Remember, let's keep this in the perspective of simply the main legal details. Anything further should be moved to the dedicated article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Our perspective should be what RS say, and that's not the current version. Unfortunately, my hands are currently tied by 1RR. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 03:50, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
inserted this RS [16] it’s what Cohen pled guilty to starship.paint (talk) 09:52, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • The current version is better than the one we had before but still puts too much emphasis on Cohen in McDougal's case. NYT_2/18/18: In early 2016, … In August of that year, Mr. Cohen learned details of a deal that American Media had struck with a former Playboy model, Karen McDougal, that prevented her from going public about an alleged affair with Mr. Trump. Mr. Cohen was not representing anyone in the confidential agreement, but he was apprised of it by Ms. McDougal’s lawyer, and earlier had been made aware of her attempt to tell her story by the media company, according to interviews and an email reviewed by The New York Times. McDougal, or rather her lawyer Keith M. Davidson who was in cahoots with Pecker, negotiated with AMI and then signed a contract with them. Pecker kept Cohen apprised and later apparently agreed to sell him the "kompromat" he held on Trump but then backed out of the deal (Cohen kept the agreement that had already been drawn up). Sources: NYT_4/21/18, NYT 4/18/18, Agreement_AMI_McD_4/18/18 (one of the exhibits is the original contract between AMI and McDougal), Vox_7/25/18, CNBC_7/17/19, Vox_7/18/19, Politico_7/17/19. CNBC: He personally paid Daniels $130,000 on the eve of the 2016 presidential election in exchange for her agreement to keep quiet about her alleged tryst with Trump a decade earlier, on the heels of his wife Melania giving birth to their son. Cohen also arranged for the publisher of the supermarket tabloid The National Enquirer to pay McDougal $150,000 in the months leading up to the election. McDougal claims she had an affair with Trump. Waiting to see if there are further developments. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:00, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @Space4Time3Continuum2x: - I disagree that there is too much on Cohen regarding McDougal, because Cohen is literally the link to Trump's role in the illegal act. The biggest reason why McDougal's payment is relevant to Trump's article is because ______ said that they did it at the direction of Trump, and that implicates Trump in a crime. In this case, ______ is Cohen. If AMI independently paid hush money to McDougal while never ever informing Trump or his associates, I don't think that would be a campaign finance violation. starship.paint (talk) 16:36, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't think we disagree on this. IMO the paragraph doesn't make Trump's involvement clear enough. I just moved Trump's denial, reimbursement & mention of the court documents up to the sentence about Stormy Daniels in this edit to keep the info about that hush money payment together (and then self-reverted). It would require adding a sentence with Trump's denial about McDougal, but I think the two changes would clarify the matter(s). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 06:46, 27 July 2019 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:01, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Title of subsection

  • The title is nondescriptive and needs to be changed to something more to the point like hush money payments. NDAs are neither illegal nor controversial in the majority of cases. The sources call the payments hush money payments, made to benefit a candidate in a presidential race and allegedly at his urging or at least with his knowledge. They should also have been reported to the FEC as a campaign loan (Stormy) or contribution (McDougal) which would have been somewhat counterproductive, hush-wise (and exceeding the limit for contributions). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:07, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
    Agree to change the title to "Hush money payments", per sources. — JFG talk 08:30, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
    Yes. "Hush money payments" makes the most sense. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:28, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
    Agreed and implemented. starship.paint (talk) 16:36, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
I think that was a little too quick to reach a consensus. I think that "hush payments" is not an appropriately neutral term for a BLP. (And because I know someone will bring it up - just because an RS says it, doesn't mean that it should be the section title as far as BLPs are concerned.) Cosmic Sans (talk) 20:45, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
What is your suggestion then? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:06, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
My suggestion = leave as status quo until we actually discuss it. Galestar (talk) 21:47, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Agreed with Cosmic Sans, that was way too fast to assume consensus when changing the title of a controversy about one of the most famous BLP's. Galestar (talk) 21:47, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
My objection is that "Hush money payments" is not NPOV and is far too informal for a section header. Galestar (talk) 21:47, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
I think that non-disclosure payments is fine. Before anyone jumps in with a WP:BUTITSTRUE, we can leave that for the actual section test which has citations and full information. Cosmic Sans (talk) 01:05, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

@Galestar and Cosmic Sans: - addressing you together. The status quo isn't Non-disclosure payments. That header was only edited in [17] on 22 July 2019, that's 4 days ago, without any discussion. The real status quo is a header of Hush payments, which was in the article for over 7 months, see 21 December 2018 it was there already. [18] If you want, I can take us back to Hush payments while we discuss. starship.paint (talk) 01:41, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Starship.paint Yes thanks, please self-revert back to "Hush payments" as the prior long-standing content for a day or two more discussion. We may also discuss the prior long-standing content titles -- now it's back to small size like it was when it was just a part of "Legal affairs" or "Other legal affairs" (no pun intended), maybe it no longer needs a separate section and just put it the para back into that  ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:35, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
I have just put it back Hush payments. But I still think it deserves its own section, given the other places on-wiki where we obviously cover it in more detail, it's obviously noteworthy starship.paint (talk) 02:47, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
I appreciate the revert until we can discuss. Perhaps I misunderstand your argument but that reason for it getting its own section sounds like "other stuff exists". Galestar (talk) 04:42, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Ah okay I misunderstood what the status-quo was. Galestar (talk) 04:42, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Cosmic Sans, Galestar: Please explain why you think "hush money" is non-neutral? Quoting WP: There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia. The term is informal, according to Merriam-Webster, and defined as money paid to someone to prevent them from disclosing embarrassing or discreditable information (and their example for using it in a sentence is He's accused of paying her hush money to keep their affair secret :). Would you prefer the more formal "bribe payments" (Merriam-Webster: something that serves to induce or influence, example: offered the kid a bribe to finish his homework)? In English, you cannot pay "non-disclosure" (or "hush", for that matter), but you can pay a "bribe" or "hush money." It was legal for the women to accept the payments; the payments were illegal for Cohen/AMI only because they were done to benefit candidate Trump and weren’t declared to the FEC (and in AMI’s case, the amount was way over the limit for contributions). Pecker struck a deal and Cohen went to jail, so I don’t see where NPOV comes in. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 06:14, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Calling them "hush payments" just feeds into the salacious nature of the drama, which we most certainly aim to avoid. We are here to present the facts dispassionately and we should not imply that something is controversial. "Non-disclosure agreements" would be a far better section heading. It is important to note that we are not presenting the issue through the act of a person paying somebody not to say something. As Space4Time3Continuum2x rightly states, this is not controversial. The notability is entirely because of the legal investigations, and not on whether the payments are wrong or right. The legal investigations sections are not supposed to be a list of controversies. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:29, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
No, you either misunderstood or my explanation wasn’t clear enough. NDAs per se are not controversial; my work contract, for example, includes one, and I don’t get paid additional money for NOT passing on confidential company information to the competition, I’d get fired and fined and/or sued if I did. The hush money payments are also not controversial but for a different reason: we know for a fact that the payments were made, and why they were made. We also mention that one of the parties involved says that the reimbursement wasn’t a reimbursement. Whatever the salacious nature of the drama was, calling it "alleged affairs" seems NPOV to me. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:27, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Me too. 2600:1702:2340:9470:ECEE:136B:4E62:62DB (talk) 18:14, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
The affairs aren't alleged, but this isn't a section about affairs. This is a section about the payments that were part of the non-disclosure agreement. Non-disclosure agreements aren't signed for nothing, whether that's payment directly or payment as part of ongoing employment. "Hush money" or "hush payments" are not neutral descriptions. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:05, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

- new suggestion: Campaign finance violations. That's the crime. starship.paint (talk) 03:13, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

This is the closest so far to the optimal title. I think "violations" might be coming to a conclusion that hasn't been legally established yet, but certainly the title should be something to do with campaign finance. I think something like campaign finance payments would be the best to describe the investigation, and could also include any other payments from the campaign funds that are under investigation. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:26, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
@Onetwothreeip: - Cohen pleaded guilty to campaign finance violations. Also, finance plus payment seems like an overlap starship.paint (talk) 03:29, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
That's a supported conclusion for Michael Cohen but not for Trump. Maybe misuse of campaign funds. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:45, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
This article has misuse of euphemisms. "Violations" is the correct word. SPECIFICO talk 03:56, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
The name of the charge is a legal technicality. In our search for accuracy, we should not lose the essence of the material—i.e. hush money payments. I say bank that, Stop Thinking, and move on. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:01, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
It's not about whether he did or didn't do something, it's just a conclusion and that shouldn't be in the title. "Hush money" has already been dealt with, as far too informal and salacious. The "essence" of the material isn't the payments, it's the investigation into the legality of the payments. In the context of this particular section, we don't actually care about the payments themselves, beyond basic context. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:34, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

What Mandruss said: Move on, p l e a s e. NDAs are normally signed before to keep you from doing the fact; they're not signed after to keep you from talking about having done the fact. (BTW, and not that it matters for our editing, starship.paint provided the link to the contracts between AMI and McDougal which are available online to be read by the general public; they do not contain "non-disclosure agreement" or "NDA.") has already been dealt with – uh, no. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 04:49, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

The paragraph isn't about whether or not it was unusual to sign them. Of course the matter of "hush payment" has been dealt with, I'm very sure my last response was not the first time the informality of the phrase was brought up here. I think this is all redundant though, since this doesn't actually need a title at all. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:57, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Merriam-Webster doesn't say hush money is slang or colloquial, which pretty much kills the "too informal" argument. I don't know about "salacious", since Merriam-Webster doesn't make moral judgments about words. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:11, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Merriam-Webster also doesn't say dad is informal, even though it's an informal form of "father". I think if we are to use such a dictionary, we should use what they say rather than what they don't. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:59, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

"Hush money payments" is not slang. It is in everyday use, accurate, and well supported by reliable sources. I really don't know why this is still being discussed. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:37, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

I didn't say it's slang, I said it's informal, along with the issues myself and others have raised. Onetwothreeip (talk) 13:42, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
It's not informal either. The "issues" you and others have raised aren't issues at all. "Hush money payments" is neutral, accurate and well-sourced. There's absolutely no reason not to use the term because it passes every policy and guideline Wikipedia has. If you are concerned about the way it sounds, that's just too bad. Continued opposition just comes off as disruptive, frankly. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:54, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
The informality of the term is the issue, and has been raised. It's not a neutral term, as it implies that something bad has happened. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:38, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
@Onetwothreeip: It doesn't matter if it is "informal" or not, because the term is well understood by everyone. I don't believe it implies something bad happened, but that's academic because something bad happened. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:30, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
@Scjessey:, your need to convey that "something bad happened" is basically my problem with this heading in a nutshell. When you find yourself choosing the title of a section in a BLP article because you want to convey that some wrongdoing took place, I think it's time to take a step back. Cosmic Sans (talk) 19:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
@Cosmic Sans: I don't have a "need" to convey anything. Reliable sources do that. "Hush money payments" is consistent with policy, guidelines and sourcing. A small number of editors think it is a non-neutral term, but they are (a) wrong, (b) unable to point to a single policy or guideline to backup their position, and (c) reduced to just repeating their feelings and opinions in the hope it'll wear down the editors who are standing with the full weight of policy and guidelines behind them. That's disruptive, and maybe it is those editors who need to "take a step back" instead. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:41, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
@Scjessey:, you've admitted that negative connotations accompany this term. I think anyone would look at the term "hush payments" and conclude that it's negative. Are you disputing that? Cosmic Sans (talk) 13:14, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
@Cosmic Sans: I didn't admit anything. Read it again. I said "I don't believe it implies something bad happened, but that's academic because something bad happened." I didn't comment on "hush payments" either. I commented on the more accurate "hush money payments". And I don't care if anyone thinks it is "negative" because that is exactly what reliable sources use and what Trump/Cohen did. The word you are looking for is descriptive, not negative. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:53, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Have we had enough of this unproductive back-and-forth? It's quite clear that someone is wrong on policy and will not be budged if we continue "discussing" until Christmas. Those who think the current heading really needs to be changed (or eliminated) need to start a survey or drop this. I also prefer "hush money payments" as more common than the current "hush payments", but I don't feel strongly enough to start said survey myself; i.e. I could live with the status quo. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:27, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
It’s okay to use terms which have negative connotations if that is the majority viewpoint of reliable sources, whether it be “murder”, “rape”, or “hush payments”. starship.paint (talk) 00:21, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "Hush money" is not a neutral term. It carries with it certain connotations that we're all aware of and would be pointless to deny. (Aren't the negative connotations the exact reason why people are fighting to keep it in? Anyway.) It doesn't matter that a RS says it. In a BLP, especially in one so politically contentious as this, we should ensure that when Wikipedia is speaking, it must be as neutral as possible. This doesn't mean that the actual meat of the article needs to be changed. Cosmic Sans (talk) 12:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
What connotations am I aware of and denying? That hush money is hush money and not salary or payment for the sale of an item or work performed ? What else do you call a bribe but a bribe (that's the formal term)? Quoting Scjessey, "hush money payments" is neutral, accurate and well-sourced. The women said they had affairs with Trump, they were paid hush money as confirmed by Cohen, AMI, and the documents presented to the courts, Trump denied. Those are the facts, not whether or not Trump had an affair. Legal issue, nondisclosure agreement, nondisclosure payment, campaign finance payments, that's legalese to fudge the issue in the title, i.e., sanitize it. Campaign finance violations - I can think of several but this section deals with the hush money payments. WP:PUBLICFIGURE: BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article. ... Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. It is denied, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should state only that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that the affair actually occurred. The title needs to reflect the content of the section, not deflect from it. Deflecting is non-neutral and biased. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:55, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Deflecting is non-neutral and biased. Agreed. Cosmic Sans's comment is another example of the all-too-common misinterpretation of Wikipedia neutrality policy. Like notability, Wikipedia's neutrality is not particularly intuitive and requires a careful reading of the policy. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:16, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Obviously some people here think it's a biased term, and others believe it's not biased. Either way, we can come up with a better term. I agree with something like campaign finance violations as suggested by Starship.paint. This doesn't have to be a debate on "hush money" when we can all agree on something better, no matter how we feel about it. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:29, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

New approach

It's just one paragraph anyway, does it really need a title? We can just put this paragraph into the main top-level part of the investigations section and let the paragraph speak for itself. We have much greater detail over this at the dedicated articles. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:46, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Oppose, since readers generally don't read top-down but rather look for a particular topic of immediate interest. It will be harder to find without a heading. And we have plenty of one-paragraph sections. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:14, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
We don't need single-paragraph sections on an article like this. Readers already cannot see these subsections on the contents, and this is not at all the appropriate article for readers who want to know specifically about this subject. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:38, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
I've made a very similar argument repeatedly, including recently when I proposed transcluding the Presidency section from the lead of the Presidency article. I argued that the Presidency article should be viewed as the primary go-to for information about his presidency, that it should be viewed as a mere extension of this article for space reasons, that the information about his presidency in this article can and should be kept at a very high overview level. I was informed that I was wrong and that many readers won't go to the Presidency article despite the prominent hatnote. I was also informed that we can't do that because other presidents' BLPs don't do that.
We don't need single-paragraph sections on an article like this. And yet we have 12 of them, if my tired old eyes can be trusted.
I consider this edit an overbold and I'll ask you to self-revert it. This is not resolved just because you say it's resolved. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:10, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
  • You do not new approach-sidestep ongoing discussions that do not appear to be going your way. Please, self-revert. (I would have done it myself but I'm not sure if my edit reverting the hyphenating of real estate counts towards 1RR.) As for Readers already cannot see these subsections on the contents, I've been asking myself for a while why "Legal investigations" is a subsection to the "Presidency" section because Russian interference, hush money payments, Manafort, Gates, Papadopoulus all predate the presidency (also part of the Flynn and Stone stuff) and belong in the 2016 campaign section under their own headings. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:46, 28 July 2019 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:56, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't know why you think the other discussion isn't "going my way". The only reason that the paragraph still had its own heading was simply because it wasn't yet removed when we took the steps to tighten what was several paragraphs into one, and it should have been done at the time. As for the legal affairs of "associates", much of what is described is not directly relevant to Trump. That content should be written on this article only as it relates to Trump, and then in the most summary way possible, where further elaboration can occur on other articles as appropriate. I agree that the legal investigations shouldn't be entirely a subsection of the presidency section, and I will promptly resolve this. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:16, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
@Onetwothreeip: You have been asked politely by two regular editors to self-revert. I'd suggest you self-revert. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:19, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
What is a "regular editor"? That sounds like a page ownership issue to me.--MONGO (talk) 03:59, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
I agree they have been polite and I respect their editing and their conduct on the talk page. I'm not convinced that restoring headings for single paragraphs is a good idea, but I am willing to hear why editors think so. You have said this is not resolved just because you say it's resolved about me. What are you saying that I have said is resolved exactly? Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:33, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
@Onetwothreeip: No, it doesn't work that way. You don't get to make an overbold edit around an issue under discussion and then treat it as status quo ante. You self-revert and then we talk about it. And you make an effort to avoid future overbolds of that nature. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:40, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Can you show me a guideline that says an editor should revert their own edits when asked to do so? I don't believe the edits I have made are "overbold", but simply minor technical edits moving things around. I wouldn't take it personally if someone objected to an edit I've made, or even if they revert it.
Personally I didn't mind what heading was used for the paragraph regarding the non-disclosure agreements, except that using "hush" was inappropriate. This discussion seemed quite redundant though, since it doesn't really need a heading anyway, at least when it was in the section about investigations. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:51, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Legal issues? Please, self-revert to status before this and wait for conclusion of discussion. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that reverting as you describe would be a good to the article. Can you tell me why you think so? Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:42, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't need to. This is process, not content. I've had my fill for the time being and I'm done here. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:47, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
I do wish to be collaborative here. On what basis of process do you think I should revert my edit then? Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:53, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Mandruss—you can't demand that someone revert their edit and at the same time be unwilling to engage in dialogue. Bus stop (talk) 13:41, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Absurd. "Hush money payments" is neutral, accurate and well sourced. Mandruss does not need to engage in additional, wasteful dialogue when no cogent argument against use of this term has been made. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:58, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Nonsense. Collaborative editing calls for dialogue. Bus stop (talk) 14:27, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Simply saying "no" over and over again without giving a legitimate, policy-based reason is not "collaborative" editing. It is disruption. We can't collaborate with a brick wall, so after several attempts to do so I'm not surprised Mandruss gave up. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:18, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
I think Onetwothreeip has provided this article with better trimming of the fat than anyone else has offered in some time. While I have not examined all the edits, culling here is badly needed.--MONGO (talk) 03:59, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
using "hush" was inappropriate. This discussion seemed quite redundant, but I will give a hearing to your protests while my decision stands. Can you tell me why you think so? Good dialoguing with you. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 04:08, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Space4Time3Continuum2x You've misunderstood what I'm saying was redundant. There has been a disagreement on what to name a heading, but I was saying that I think that disagreement was redundant because we didn't need a heading for it anyway. Not because discussion had ended, was resolved, or anything like this.
Scjessey There have been clear reasons based on policy that have been presented. You're entitled to disagree but please don't say that the have not been properly justified. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:37, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
I just reverted your second edit. Kindly revert your first one and then we can discuss. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 04:43, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

123ip, you've been editing on WP regularly (MONGO, I think this is what Mandruss meant by "regular editors," nothing to do with "page ownership") for longer than I have, so consider the following my informed personal interpretation of WP guidelines.

  • In a complex article like this where content has been and is being discussed at length, it's inconsiderate (I'm being polite here) to remove subsection titles, turn the subsections into single paragraphs, and "move[] [them] to top of section" (which is the only change your edit summary mentioned, a no-no),
  • then change the title "Hush payments" to "Legal issues" while it's being discussed on the Talk page and without mentioning the change in the summary,
  • and then move the renamed section + "Russian interference" + "Protests" from "Presidency" to "2016 campaign" with a summary saying "moved legal issues, moved protests."
  • I may have been wrong about the citations (why are some of them highlighted?), had to do a lot of scrolling just to get an overview of the edits.
  • If you want to go bold, do it one item at a time and with a proper summary so other editors can see what you have done and why, if for nothing else than common courtesy.
  • Do not go bold on items under discussion, even if—in your opinion—they are inappropriate or redundant. Trump is a very public figure, so well-sourced, appropriate, and DUE are very low bars to clear (we did it by saying "alleged affairs" and "he denied"). The editors of this article have to live with a lot of what they consider to be crap, as this Talk page and its 102 archives show ample evidence of. If you can't do that, you should consider not editing this and possibly other articles on current US politics.
  • We are here to present the facts dispassionately and we should not imply that something is controversial - no, we're not, we simply document what [the reliable published sources] say. We do not editorialize, we do not imply, but we also do not sanitize or whitewash.
  • "Hush money" has already been dealt with, as far too informal and salacious. 5 editors supported the title "Hush money payments" because RS, 3 objected on the basis that it is too informal and/or not appropriately neutral. Does not sound like "case closed" to me (well, maybe if you're William Barr). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:55, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
(No, I meant article regulars, which I thought was a commonly recognized concept and term. An editor who invests a substantial proportion of their volunteer time in this article, and has done so for some time. These editors' opinions rightly carry a bit more weight on this page than editors who just dropped by or participate here only occasionally. Hardly a WP:OWN issue, and I don't think editors who are familiar with my history and evaluate it fairly see me as having one; at least I've seen no evidence of that. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:33, 29 July 2019 (UTC))
I could see how you'd think that way but you're dead wrong. No "regular" editor's voice has any more say in the content here than anyone else. That attitude is definitely an OWN one and me thinks such attitudes are highly incompatible with collaborative editing.--MONGO (talk) 16:34, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
MONGO, you're certainly entitled to your lonely opinion. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:07, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Nothing amuses me more than someone professing to be an expert when their resume says otherwise.--MONGO (talk) 17:45, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
I was wondering when you would get personal, violating that important WP principle once again. I'm done with ya again. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:57, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
I didn't know that. Yay, I'm a regular! Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:13, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
  1. There is no particularly insensitivity around moving paragraphs and changing subsection titles. These are fairly mundane edits, generally less consequential than changes content.
  2. I have not carried out edits in any inappropriate way, including bold edits. Sometimes edits would simply take a lot longer than they need to if they had to be done across several separate edits, but that is my own risk since only one out of many changes in an edit could cause the entire edit to be reverted by another editor. Likewise, it can make it needlessly more complicated for other editors who wish to challenge edits if they are spread across many. I can't both condense my changes into fewer edits and spread them out into more edits at the same time.
  3. Due weight is not a "low bar" to clear for a very public figure, it's the exact opposite. There are many things Donald Trump has said or done which would be the most relevant thing about other public figures if they had done those things. I don't see how that is relevant here though.
  4. I have nothing personal against you and so I am disappointed to see that you are making this quite a personal thing about me. You should immediately withdraw your completely inappropriate remark suggesting that I should not be editing this article. I would like nothing more than to be talking about the content and format of the article, rather than talk about editors.
  5. I believe I've clarified what "already been dealt with" means. It means that particular issue was addressed by at least one other editor. It is not that consensus has come to some particular view. I simply didn't want to repeat what others have said and strongly do not wish to go around in circles on the same arguments.
  6. It appears that editors in favour of using "hush money" are essentially taking the stance that it's not a neutral term, and that the title should have a negative term to describe the events, because the events are negative. This is not something we do for things that are even more negative than this. We do not create headings to match the negativity or positivity of the content, we simply create objective headings.
  7. This is the one I have the most problem with. We are not here to "document what the reliable sources say". We are here to publish encyclopaedic articles, and that is done by using among other things, reliable sources. We also write in the English language and we seek to work collaboratively, but that's not the direct purpose of Wikipedia.
  8. "Hush money" has a negative tone and is certainly informal. Nowhere in the court proceedings are these referred to in that way. No matter what an editor's opinion of this phrase is, we can instead focus on what would be a better heading, rather than continue to debate this.
  9. Any editor characterising these payments as bribes is seriously misguided, even on the talk page. Apart from not being bribes, that is essentially an accusation of a crime and should be avoided completely if reliable sources are not stating it explicitly.
  10. The opinions of editors do not and should not carry more weight based on the length of time they have been editing an article or engaged in its discussion. All that should matter is what they are saying, not who they are. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:55, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
How reliable sources characterize things, and the words they use, very much weighs on our content. We currently cite eight sources, counting multiple articles from the same news outlet as a single source. Of those eight, four use the word "hush" in their own voices, three do not, and one (WSJ) is unknown (to me) due to their paywall. This is not definitive in favor of "hush", but it certainly is not definitive against it. Editor opinions about negativity and salaciousness and such have no place in this decision. Opinions about informality are generally a legitimate matter of editorial judgment, but they take a back seat to treatment in RS. If half of our sources use a term to describe this issue, it is not too informal for our use.
(Re the process issue, the heading has now been restored to to its status quo ante, so that's a non-issue until you again edit without consensus and against the objections of multiple experienced regulars. I hope you won't make a habit of that, as I think you are otherwise a constructive participant at this article.) ―Mandruss ☎ 07:16, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
This isn't about the content itself, where we would follow sources in the way you're outlining. We are an encyclopaedia, so we have higher standards than newspapers. We don't dispute them on the facts, but we don't copy their presentation styles. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:05, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
That has zero basis in Wikipedia content policy, and you're just wrong. The choice of whether to use "hush" is not a "presentation style". ―Mandruss ☎ 09:35, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes it's not about content. The choice of what to have in a heading and where to use headings are absolutely choices of presentation and formatting style that we make. What is wrong is saying that I am wrong when what I have said is right. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:37, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Sorry we couldn't reach agreement. You are welcome to seek consensus for your view; until you have it, status quo ante rules. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:41, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm clearly not the only person who thinks this could be changed. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:44, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
I didn't say you were alone, I said you don't have a consensus. The easiest and clearest way to demonstrate one is a survey. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:59, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
RE item 4: making this quite a personal thing about you. I don't know anything about you, and—since lately I've pretty much steered clear of current events on this page and concentrated on the past—hadn't even noticed your edits on this page. I did not suggest that you should not be editing this article, I said that if you can't (or won't) tolerate content/wording that you do not agree with—as you demonstrated by editing without consensus and against the objections of several editors—then you should consider not editing this article. It's a suggestion to examine your motives based entirely on your actions in this particular incident, as I've stated in my previous edit, and whether you do it or not is up to you. Item 8 suggests anew that you are only willing to debate what you consider to be appropriate. I don't know what to make of item 7 which simply swats aside WP's guideline on BLPs of public figures and propounds a different concept (We are not here to "document what the reliable sources say". We are here to publish encyclopaedic articles, and that is done by using among other things, reliable sources. We also write in the English language and we seek to work collaboratively, but that's not the direct purpose of Wikipedia.). I don't have anything further to add to what I've said here and here. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:39, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, regarding #7, we are, per WP:DUE, here to present the majority viewpoint of reliable sources. starship.paint (talk) 00:35, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Not exactly but close enough. We're here to write articles for an encyclopaedia, and the content of these articles come from the reliable sources. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:28, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
We are indeed here to write articles for an encyclopaedia, and we do that by presenting the majority viewpoint of reliable sources. starship.paint (talk) 04:21, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Strongly Support This needs to be in the article with a title..there are plenty of us who read from the top down reading the LEAD first then the index and read what they see as relevant based on the paragraph titles. 2600:1702:2340:9470:B539:BDA0:BD88:3ABA (talk) 18:23, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Revert needed

Is it possible to roll back these two massive edits from 5:02 and 8:27, the second one done after the editor had been asked to self-revert the first one and wait for the conclusion of two ongoing discussions on long-standing content (one, two)? I believe the editor, after having decided what is good and appropriate for the article, is now, in the interest of being "collaborative," willing to hear why other editors disagree while the fait accompli stands. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:19, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree these edits were made unilaterally, without discussion, and do not improve the page. However, instead of asking someone to self-revert (who obviously does not agree with you and M.), you should either revert to the previous (consensus) version yourself or make a compromise version. My very best wishes (talk) 15:17, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Have you looked at how many sections are involved? It would take several edits to reverse everything. What about 1RR? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:19, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
In this particular situation I would advice you not to make a revert, but rather focus on fixing anything specific you think needs to be fixed. You can do it by utilizing texts of the current or previous versions. Yes, editing such high profile pages is difficult. I prefer not to. My very best wishes (talk) 20:42, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't see an issue with those edits: they only moved some text around. — JFG talk 20:09, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Take a closer look. The editor also renamed sections (including the one being discussed, "Hush money," which is now "Legal affairs" in the "2016 campaign" section), removed references, AFAICT), all of it under the summaries "Moved single-paragraph subsections to top of section " and "Moved campaign legal issues to campaign section, moves protests section to presidency section." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 03:53, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
There's only one section I can recall renaming. I don't think that has to be its permanent name though. What references are you talking about that I removed? Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:42, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I reverted. Rollback is for vandalism, so I changed the section header. Main reason for reverting is that the “See also” for this paragraph on hush payments can be mistaken to apply to the next paragraph with content on Nadler. starship.paint (talk) 06:49, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

That issue can easily be solved by moving the "see also" tags to the top of the subsection. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
@Onetwothreeip: - in my view that is even worse. I did it here [19] to demonstrate. It could be then misconstrued that all three paragraphs relate to Daniels/McDougal when only paragraph #2 does. starship.paint (talk) 01:39, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Naming conventions

Eyer: RE this edit. When the definite article is part of a company's name, it is capitalized per WP Manual of Style's naming conventions. See The Coca-Cola Company. In the case of universities, the naming conventions say that capitalization of the article should be avoided. Ohio State does not seem to be using "The" in running text, so consequently their WP article doesn't use it either. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:53, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I think the naming conventions link has to go with whether the “the” appears in the article title. MOS:THECAPS governs whether the “the” is capitalized in running text. What are your thoughts? —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 17:02, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
My thought is that THECAPS is about as coherent as mud. It says to lower-case the "the" except in certain exception cases, and is both vague and self-contradictory as to how to determine the exception cases. It says however, some idiomatic expressions, including the titles of artistic and academic works, should be quoted exactly according to common usage. – and then gives "The Hague" – which is not the title of an artistic or academic work – as one of the exceptions. Is [T/t]he Trump Organization more like the United Kingdom or The Open Championship? Who can say?
Until that guideline is cleaned up, this comes down to local decision, and my personal preference is The Trump Organization. My advice to Eyer would be to skip this kind of edits until then. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:33, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
My mistake, I hadn’t noticed that naming conventions was about article titles. THECAPS: Names (The Hague) and book titles are idiomatic expressions? I still think "The" should be capitalized because the sentence talks about changing the name of the corporation to "The Trump Organization," not "Trump Organization." There’s also "The Trump Corporation" and "The Trump Follies Member Inc." while most of Trump’s numerous companies don't have "The" in the name (TRUMP 845 UN MGR CORP., TRUMP CENTRAL PARK WEST CORP. etc.). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:00, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
MOS:THECAPS is pretty clear. Other style guides also state that "the Trump Organization" should have an uncapitalized "the". It's also uncapitalized in news sources: "The+Trump+Organization"&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 "The+Trump+Organization"&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8. The "the" should be uncapitalized. —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 00:51, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Somehow, your statement that THECAPS is pretty clear didn't make it seem any clearer to me. And I haven't seen these "other style guides" of which you speak. But the Times and Post seem very consistent on lower case, so I'll support it on that basis. We are generally not bound by our sources' manuals of style, but until THECAPS is improved that's all we have in this particular case. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:21, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
I believe that the appropriate guidance is found at MOS:INSTITUTIONS, which states: Full names of institutions, organizations, companies, etc. are proper names and require capitals. Perhaps a clarification should be added to the WP:THECAPS section on this basis. For the purposes of this article, "The Trump Organization" is the company's full name, so that it is spelled with capital "The". — JFG talk 12:45, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
@JFG: LOL. Thanks for citing the guideline that kills your own argument. Bullet 1.2: "The word the at the start of a title is uncapitalized, regardless of the institution's own usage". ―Mandruss ☎ 12:56, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Duh. Clear as mud, you said? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ — JFG talk 13:07, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
THECAPS is clear as mud as to this question. INSTITUTIONS is clear as a bell and THECAPS should take a lesson from it. User:Eyer has simply been citing the wrong guideline. Thanks for the find. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:13, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Would MOS demigod SMcCandlish care to comment? — JFG talk 14:11, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
The square quotes in the lead should be removed. I used them on the Talk page because I was quoting Trump’s website and the NY database search results for "The Trump" and "Trump." We’re not implying or inferring anything one way or the other, it’s the name he chose and the name of the WP article. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:07, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Agree that quotes can be misinterpreted as "scare quotes". I think it would be reasonable to keep the capitalized name when talking about the name itself, while other instances mentioning the company could do with a lowercase "the". — JFG talk 14:16, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
You mean it's not the lion, the tin man, and the square crow? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:33, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
He usually has two capitals when appearing as "The Donald." NRPanikker (talk) 09:16, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Post-Presidency

Newspapers occasionally speculate on what Donald Trump will do at the end of and after his presidency, but are there any hard facts that could be put together here, beyond his original statement that he would take back control of his business after eight years?

For instance, he has mentioned the possibility of pardoning himself. Have any experts on American law written about the legality of pardoning himself and/or his children? Would it extend to offences at the state rather than federal level?

I have also seen talk about the possibility of his going abroad to avoid prosecution. Obviously there will be no plans for that in the public domain, but has anything been published about Trump properties in likely locations, such as Moscow or St Petersburg?

Another issue is the White House records. Recent presidents have carted their papers and tapes off to Presidential Libraries rather than shred them on-site. Is there any public plan to build a Trump Library? NRPanikker (talk) 13:00, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

There's no way to include speculation like that in the article. Cosmic Sans (talk) 13:16, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
That`s opinion. 2600:1702:2340:9470:5120:8A59:DA87:3D8E (talk) 16:05, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
We don't know the future of the Trump dynasty, but we should be able to collect together what has been authoritatively stated about their options. For instance, the President has recently been musing about being a "President for Life" like some of his friends: "My opinion" is that that would not be feasible under the US constitution as it is now, but have any experts on constitutional law said so? NRPanikker (talk) 02:08, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
My opinion as well but I`m not an expert on anything related to the law..it should be easy enough to decipher although the usual back and forth will occur with the pro trump faction getting the last word as usual..president for life would be moving down the road to a totalitarian state which is probably where we are headed anyway if you believe history as I do..somewhat of an expert on that..would be nice to know what he`s up to if it doesn`t happen besides spending the rest of his life hold up in a fortress..definitely relevant and should be in the article. 2600:1702:2340:9470:FD79:FFC:E4BC:1FC7 (talk) 17:35, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
See this in regards to prognostications.--MONGO (talk) 18:08, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Prognostications is a big word..try coming down a notch so the rest of understand..the link refers to this: " Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation or presumptions " the key word being unverifiable..when trump says he is considering pardoning himself or somehow becoming president for life, this is easily verifiable. 2600:1702:2340:9470:69A0:7D68:5EE6:C16D (talk) 22:34, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Just came across this: Wikipedia:Five pillars "Wikipedia has no firm rules..Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording " 2600:1702:2340:9470:69A0:7D68:5EE6:C16D (talk) 22:58, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Welcome to the 'pedia! — JFG talk 15:40, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
I`ve been here a while...I just don`t like editing..thanks for the encouragement though 2600:1702:2340:9470:7D16:54D1:1D7B:6B6B (talk) 17:37, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

We should not include any such speculation at this time. We don't even know if he has 1 1/2 years remaining in his presidency, or 5 1/2 years. He himself doesn't seem to have given any thought to his post-presidential career, assuming he will have a second term. As for the speculation about "president for life" or a "third term", forget it. Clearly impossible under the American constitution. And as for presidential records, they do not get shredded - per U.S. law they all have to be preserved and eventually find their way into the public domain. Commonly preserved at a presidential library, which is also a kind of museum and celebration of the person. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:52, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Mandruss: It was this edit removing the links to the sections of Trump's siblings Fred Jr., Elizabeth, and Robert in the same WP article as his son's. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:43, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I did remove links to Trump's siblings, because the target page Family of Donald Trump was already listed immediately above in a hatnote. Barron's link could or could not be maintained. It's further away from the hatnote, and contrary to the siblings who have one-liners, there is some substance about his life in the target section. Due to reader interest, Barron used to have his own page, which was merged by consensus at AfD. Personally, I'd keep his name linked. — JFG talk 15:45, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Compared to those family members, unless he decides to reject his father's example, Barron is more likely to have his own article at some point in the future. Where there is a high potential for a future article, we deliberately create redlinks. The fact that there is some information already extant about Barron, thereby making it a bluelink, doesn't change that principle. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:49, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Potential - got it. To date, the substance of his life is strictly Hello! magazine, but it's good to know that he is "Not to be confused with Baron Trump novels." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:17, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Uhm - trimming or inserting bias?

JFG: Trim excess citations; remove unnecessary qualifier. First you remove the sources necessitating the qualifier, then you remove the qualifier, calling it "unnecessary." I call that inserting bias by omission. Inciting (or seeming to incite) violence is a recurring theme in Trump's 4.5 years (and counting) of election campaigning. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:16, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

No, the source I left in accurately reports the "threat of violence against journalists". It's just wasteful to have 3 or 4 sources substantiating the same thing. The qualifier "widely" is a perennial weasel word. — JFG talk 15:23, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Do you read before you trim?

JFG: Excess citations You purged CNN and Politico and left the "uncut excerpts from HUMAN EVENTS’s exclusive interview with Donald Trump on culture, politics, and his potential run for the presidency" on Human Events, "The leading conservative media since 1944?" It's not an RS, and—even if it were—an unfiltered Q/A never is ("How about Charlie Sheen's debut on The Apprentice?" Charlie Sheen actually married the daughter of a member of mine from Palm Beach Florida, the Mar-a-Lago Club. And I told the member, “You cannot let your daughter [Brooke Mueller] marry Charlie Sheen.) WTH? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I kept this one because it was a pre-politics source about Trump, did not realize it was considered not-RS. Feel free to improve, but please don't add 3 or 4 sources to corroborate a basic fact, such as Trump self-identifying as a Presbyterian. — JFG talk 16:11, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 Done I have replaced the Human Events quote with the Politico article. The CNN piece is quoted below to support "not asking for forgiveness", no need to repeat it here. — JFG talk 16:21, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
JFG, there are several posts here concerned about excessive trimming and inserting bias. I noticed you trimmed content on Russia and meeting with Putin. PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 03:53, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
There is consensus (#37 above) to trim this article. If you disagree with some of my work, feel free to explain why, or make improvements yourself. — JFG talk 10:38, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Better solution is not to introduce POV in the "trims" so that editors can concentrate on other improvements rather than damage control. Many of the trims are fine, but many of them introduce POV tilts. Citing the Trim consensus does not address the POV-tilt concern that various editors have expressed on several articles. And bear in mind that where we see what appears to be overciting on these politics articles, it's often come about due to contentious discussions in the past. Too many references for the immediate future is better than having new editors, unaware, repeat those same entanglements. SPECIFICO talk 13:08, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
many of them introduce POV tilts I have noted this as well. soibangla (talk) 23:19, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Extended Term of Office

WP:NOTAFORUM. I'm being nice by answering your question, but this is not the place for such discussion. Mgasparin (talk) 03:53, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Early in his presidency, Donald Trump spoke of taking back control of his businesses after eight years, implying that he envisaged serving two terms of four years each. Recently he has been musing about being a "President for Life," like some of his friends. This does not seem possible with the US constitution as it stands.

The current ruler of China has had his constitution changed to allow him to stay in power indefinitely. Perhaps other WikiPedians could find out how quickly it has been possible to make amendments to the US constitution.

His mentor Vladimir Putin has managed to circumvent a similar two term limit by changing places with his Prime Minister for a term and then returning to the Presidency. If Donald Trump ran for Vice-President after two terms, with someone else, possibly his junior wife, in the lead position, would the counter be reset so that he would automatically become president when she resigned?

A third possibility is the use of special powers in a National Emergency, which he has been proclaiming frequently. Emergency powers were invoked to transfer power from the legislature to the executive and get around the lack of a parliamentary majority in his homeland after the Reichstag fire of 1938: could something similar be done if the US Capitol were to burn down? NRPanikker (talk) 02:57, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

@NRPanikker: I will answer this, but keep in mind that this page is not a forum for random discussion.
To answer your first question, no it is not possible for Trump to run for three terms, as stipulated by the 22nd Amendment. Secondly, the USA is not China, therefore legislation here takes MUCH longer. In order for any constitutional amendment to be approved, it must be ratified by at least 2/3 of the governments of the states in the Union. Do you have any idea how hard that is? Article One of the US Constitution is STILL "pending" before the states, and it was proposed about 220 years ago! (give or take a few).
Third, the USA is also not Russia. If Melania were to resign after Trump had served 2 full terms, he would be barred from the presidency and the Speaker of the House would take his place.
4th, for his homeland are you referring to Hitler? Keep in mind that the Constitution of the US DOES allow for emergency powers, but Congress CAN overrule the president's invocation of his abilities if Congress believes that the president has overstepped his boundaries. Remember, the Reichstag fire of 1938 in Germany was blamed on a Dutch Communist (the scapegoat), and Hitler invoked the emergency powers to give himself the ability to force the Reichstag to pass the Enabling Act. Mgasparin (talk) 03:53, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 August 2019

Write Trump's twitter quote in it's entirety. 5:27 AM - 14 Jul 2019 "Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how.... Ojiram (talk) 05:35, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Per Consensus #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. That tweet will be forgotten in a year or two. It will not have a lasting impact on his presidency. Besides, there is a whole other page dedicated to his use of social media. See Donald Trump on social media. Mgasparin (talk) 05:41, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
You don`t know what will be in a year let alone 2 it is an overtly racist statement and is significant..one of his more out of touch comments...indigenous Hispanics aren`t going to forget it neither will I 2600:1702:2340:9470:5DA6:60B9:1394:CA3A (talk) 13:13, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
The entire quote is cited in the article Racial views of Donald Trump. We summarize the incident in a paragraph at this article. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:20, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:The Donald which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 04:47, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

This makes no sense. 2600:1702:2340:9470:480:C883:A89A:D4A0 (talk) 17:58, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_102&oldid=1136668900"