Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 103

Archive 100

Archive 101

Archive 102

Archive 103

Archive 104

Archive 105

→

Archive 110

Racial views ? Better heading?

Can we come up with a better section heading than Racial views, which validates the oft-invoked deflection that hate speech is just another valid opinion in our liberal democratic discourse?

@MelanieN: I understand that we'll need to figure this out on the talk page, but are you also saying there was specific and explicit discussion and consensus relating to that header in the past, or just that it's longstanding and should remain in place until we can fix it? Under the current page sanction, unless I'm mistaken, there wouldn't be any particular reason to leave longstanding text in place except when an explicit discussion and consensus had been reached. At any rate, can we figure out a header that refers to Trump's speech and actions relating to race without treating them as opinions?

Any suggestions? SPECIFICO talk 22:44, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi, SPECIFICO. No, I don't think there has been any specific discussion about that section heading; as far as I can tell the only consensus-certified rule here about racial views is the wording of the sentence in the lead section. The applicable policy here, per DS, is that you can be bold and change something, but if someone objects by reverting it, you have to go the talk page, discuss, and wait at least 24 hours. I have seen more knowledgeable admins add that the longstanding version is the default until there is consensus to for a change, but the written rule implies that you can make the change again. Of course, I can revert it again! while we both observe 1RR.

Setting aside the DS rules which almost nobody really understands, here's the issue: you changed the section header from "Racial views" to "Racism"; I changed it back. Here's my reasoning: based on what sources are now (finally finding the courage) to say, we can call his comments racist, but we can't call him racist. I am open to other wordings besides "racial views" - although note that is the title of our forked article. I am not open to calling the section simply "racism," because that is too much like saying he (rather than what he says) is racist, and the sources have not gone that far.

Other people: what should we call that section? Racial views, or Racism, or something else? -- MelanieN (talk) 00:10, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I think this should be "Racial views", just as our subpage about it. My very best wishes (talk) 00:33, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

How do we deal with the issue that "views" enables disagreement about racism? I think that "Racial views" article has been kind of a mess because a broad cross section of editors feel the title is weaselly or OR, since we do not have sources discussing Trump's "views" when he says and does what he does and says. I'm sure a better title for that article will eventually be found. Is it a "view" that typical Mexican immigrants are rapists? That opens the door to all kinds of bad stuff -- scientific racism, etc. SPECIFICO talk 01:00, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I do not disagree with you, but this is more frequently described as "views" [1]. Personally, I am more troubled by the crowds who supported him by chanting "send her back", the crowd who quite possibly will elect him a president again, precisely because he has such views. The historical analogy is obvious. My very best wishes (talk) 01:48, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, in that instance it was "incitements" rather than "views".

When we all began working on these articles 3 years ago, the mainstream press was ill prepared and did not fully understand the phenomena on which it was reporting. For that reason, the mainstream narratives treated Trump's provocations and some of his actions as if they were good faith errors or the blunders of ignorance or inexperience. Mainstream reporting and discussion generally presented Trump mostly at face value. That has changed in 2019, I think. There's now frank discussion of Trump's use of racist narratives and actions to arouse his supporters. The WP articles contain much language from years back during the period of false equivalencies and weaseling in the mainstream press. That's largely ended and these articles need to be updated and made more straightforward, reflecting current mainstream sources. SPECIFICO talk 02:17, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree 2600:1702:2340:9470:1D6F:5AAA:65B:C781 (talk) 02:31, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

e.g.[2] SPECIFICO talk 02:49, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree that what is significant isn't necessarily that Trump may have racist views, but that he uses racist language in order to energize his base. So I think the section could be renamed. I think though that incitement lacks an impartial tone. Maybe something like "appeals to racism" or "use of racist language?" I would point out that there is no dispute in reliable sources that the language used was racist, so we can't use phrasing that suggests it might not be. We can then mention the discussion of whether Trump himself is racist. TFD (talk) 17:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Something like "Appeals to racism" or "Use of racist language" would be OK and would be in line with what Reliable Sources are now (finally) saying. However it would omit some of his ACTIONS such as the housing discrimination cases. Whatever we choose has to be supported by sources. "Racist language" certainly is and I think "appeals to racism" probably is also. I haven't seen much discussion about whether he himself is a racist - vs. using racism for his own advantage whether he believes in it or not. (There is some question whether he believes in anything other than himself and what is best for him.) -- MelanieN (talk) 18:18, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes RS are finally saying that, but as importantly they are also saying he let Puerto Ricans, lawful immigrants, and others suffer and die while associating himself with those events via TV appearances and narratives. I suppose we could use 2 or 3 pithy words that combine racist speech and racist actions, great, e.g. Racist speech and actions. But failing that, what's wrong with the simpler, neutral, descriptive word "Racism" as a title that encompasses all these race-related factors? Note: we do not and should not call him a "racist" and we should not say he has "racist beliefs" or otherwise project these incitements and other actions onto his person or consciousness. SPECIFICO talk 18:47, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Just noting that whatever you put in the section title is interpreted as referring to the subject of the article. So a title of "Racism" would be interpreted as "Donald Trump's racism" the same as "Early life and education" is interpreted as "Donald Trump's early life and education" ~Awilley (talk) 19:46, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

That is not the same thing as labeling him a "racist". Overwhelming RS narrative refers to Trump's racism in his speech, conduct, and incitements without tagging him a "racist" creature. SPECIFICO talk 20:43, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Awilley. That's why I removed it, and that's why I oppose it. "Racism" is too much like saying "He is a racist," and sources are not doing that. Let's find some compromise language; it doesn't look like plain "Racism" is going to sell here. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:24, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, an alternative would be to say Racist speech and policies which is the mainstream RS presentation and also addresses Awilley's stated concern that racism might be referring to his inner existence rather than his words and deeds. So far I don't see much substantive opposition to "racism" -- including from you and Awilley, if I understand you correctly, who seem to anticipate misinterpretation of language, even when it's the same language dominating RS coverage.

Another way to address your concern would be to use the header "Racism" and to open the section with a sentence that makes clear that the section is about Trump's actions, namely his appeals to, enabling of, and sympathies with "racism". That would make it clear why that title is the appropriate one while clarifying that we're not concerned with what's in his mind and heart but rather with conveying his words and deeds. I like that, actually. I think it addresses all views expressed here. SPECIFICO talk 21:33, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I think that that seems like an excellent idea. Gandydancer (talk) 22:27, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Awilley that new header would be interpreted as "Donald Trump's racism". But it appears we need exactly such header based on the recent coverage in sources. One can simply make Google search. Here is a typical example of publications about it. My very best wishes (talk) 01:49, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I think a header of "Racism" would be pretty far from NPOV. Cosmic Sans (talk) 16:46, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Please explain why you believe this would not be neutral and why it would not reflect the section's content or cited sources? For reference, here is the opening lead of our article on the subject of WP:Racism:

Racism is the belief in the superiority of one race over another. It may also include prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone because they are of a different race or ethnicity, or the belief that members of different races or ethnicities should be treated differently. Modern variants are often based in social perceptions of biological differences between peoples. These can take the form of social actions, practices or beliefs, or political systems that consider different races to be ranked as inherently superior or inferior to each other, based on presumed shared inheritable traits, abilities, or qualities.

In terms of political systems (e.g., apartheid) that support the expression of prejudice or aversion in discriminatory practices or laws, racist ideology may include associated social aspects such as nativism, xenophobia, otherness, segregation, hierarchical ranking, and supremacism.

SPECIFICO talk 17:09, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Letting the sources speak for themselves is one thing, but saying it in Wikipedia's voice is quite another. Cosmic Sans (talk) 17:32, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, when there is a consensus among mainstream RS, we do write in Wikipedia's voice. Do you find no such consensus in RS?

I don't think it's appropriate in a header. Let the text and the sources speak for themselves. Cosmic Sans (talk) 17:45, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

The section describes numerous recurring instances of Trump's having categorized people, or their actions, or public policies, in terms of racial/ethnic/religious/national-origin characteristics. For better or worse, in a strictly descriptive sense, that is a racist mode of thought, speech, and action. WP:NOTCENSORED. That's the text that we, as editors, reflect in our choice of heading. The sources themselves do not speak in the heading. And the section describes not only speech but actions, which are not views. So the current heading is not speaking for the sources. We need a better one that is true to the content. BTW, nobody knows Trump's "views", we know only his words and deeds. SPECIFICO talk 17:42, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't censored, nor am I saying that it should be. But we have special concerns and considerations in writing a biography of a living person. I don't want to censor anything - the text and the sources can speak for themselves. Headers, though, are written entirely in Wikipedia's voice and provided without citation, so they should be as neutral as possible. Cosmic Sans (talk) 18:29, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@MelanieN:, to answer your earlier comment that to appeals to racism or use of racist language excludes mention of possibly racist actions such as housing discrimination, I don't think it does. Trump's use of racism raises the question of whether he has racist beliefs or is merely manipulating his supporters. His previous and current actions and even his father's actions in the KKK are relevant to that conversation. TFD (talk) 23:14, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

It seems to me that "racial views" doesn't precisely match up to Trump's views and actions, or even what the section contains. What this section is really documenting is Trump's relationship with others. I cannot think of a succinct way to make that into a section heading, and the philosophy may not be sufficiently understood by the broader Wikipedia readership. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:21, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: You keep claiming that "racism" is a neutral word; I've seen you do it at least twice now. In a biography, that is ridiculous. Sure, there is a scholarly definition of the term. But applying it to an actual person is another kettle of fish - it could probably only be done for someone who says it themselves, "of course I believe in racism". What we have here, and what Reliable Sources have finally brought themselves to say, is someone who makes racist comments. (Notice that racist is an adjective, not a noun. They report that he says racist things; they do not say that he is a racist, and neither can we.) Awilley is right: using this as a section heading in a biography would mean that we, Wikipedia, are directly attributing racism to the biography's subject. Cosmic Sans is right: we can report his racist comments all we want, but we can't put it in the heading, because that means we are saying it in Wikipedia's voice. We need to find an acceptable heading - TFD suggested several - other than "Racism". Can we please discuss compromise headings, instead of your repeated insistence (bordering on bludgeoning) that it must be Racism and nothing else? Could you please consider responding to the suggestions that have been made here, rather than simply arguing with them? striking that; you have responded to suggested alternatives, although you always come back to "Racism". -- MelanieN (talk) 21:19, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Proposals

Let’s focus the discussion more directly on what goes into the article. Here are some of the suggested headings for this section (which is a subsection under “Public profile:):

• Racial views
• Racism
• Racial incitement
• Appeals to racism
• Use of racist language
• Racist speech and action
• Racist speech and policies
• Racism plus an opening sentence that makes clear what the section is about (could we see proposed language for that sentence?)
• Adding: Allegations of racism
• Adding: Allegations of racism and xenophobia
• Adding: Racism and xenophobia

Can we find agreement about one of these? Or other suggestions? -- MelanieN (talk) 21:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I'd call it "Allegations of racism", and then list a few defining incidents as neutrally as possible. Details belong in the main article Racial views of Donald Trump, also wrongly titled, but that's for another debate. — JFG ^talk 12:28, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

It's not just racism here though. There's also xenophobia. The two are being conflated, even though they are essentially distinct from one another. That's why I mentioned "others" above, because it covers both. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Correct, and I'd support calling this section "Allegations of racism and xenophobia". Indeed, xenophobia seems to be the dominant theme in the cited incidents. — JFG ^talk 12:41, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Except it's not just that Trump is a racist and a xenophobe. He also uses racist and xenophobic rhetoric for political gain. I'm really struggling to think of something that adequately encompasses both issues. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

• I feel like this discussion is a solution in search of a problem. I don't see anything wrong with keeping it as "Racial views." I suppose "Allegations of racism and xenophobia" is okay as well. But surely there's a better use of our collective time and energy? Cosmic Sans (talk) 13:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
• I also support keeping it at "Racial views". -- MelanieN (talk) 16:17, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

• The implication of the language "Racism" for a section heading is that the charge of racism is sufficiently established that it can be used loosely. But there are certainly many reliable sources supporting that Donald Trump is not racist, obviating the possibility of using that damning language. "Racial views" by contrast is noncommittal on that question, consequently it is more neutral and preferable. Bus stop (talk) 16:48, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

  A recurring problem with this "Racial views" heading is that nothing in the section conveys any views expressed by Trump about race relations or racism, besides his denial of being racist. Some of his words and deeds have been deemed racist or xenophobic by numerous commenters, but those are not Trump's "views", just other people's opinions about him. — JFG ^talk 01:03, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that every other suggestion I have seen would also result in recurring arguments. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:04, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

A section heading is different from for instance a sentence making an assertion. A section heading is not making an assertion. A section heading identifies a topic. A section heading need not directly correspond to the contents of that section, except in a loose way. And that is precisely what is wrong with the section heading "Racism"—it corresponds loosely with the given section, implying the presence of evidence of racism. This is improper because it is not established that Trump is racist; it is only alleged, and probably only by his detractors. Bus stop (talk) 13:57, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

@Scjessey:, addressing your point above: How about Racist and xenophobic themes ? This has the advantage that it does not conclude that his speech and actions reflect his inner "views" but does accurately convey the persistent thread of both in his public speech and conduct -- as befits the section header, Public profile. It cannot be misinterpreted, per others' concerns, that "Trump is a racist" in Wikipedia's voice. This seems like a good incremental improvement over the current title, which does -- without basis -- offer a conclusion as to what's in his soul. SPECIFICO talk 14:12, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Section headers only need to suggest what the content of a section might be. Is there any reader who could fail to take the hint that "Racial views" refers to the allegations by some that Trump is a racist? Bus stop (talk) 17:37, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. The current section heading is just wrong, and needs to be revised. I'm just struggling to think of something that encompasses all the necessary issues. Perhaps "identity politics" is close to what we are looking for? -- Scjessey (talk) 18:03, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

A reader interested in knowing about the allegations of racism associated with Trump would have no difficulty identifying a section header called "Racial views" as a likely part of the article to read about the allegations of racism associated with Trump. Bus stop (talk) 18:34, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

In that case, it should simply say racism. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:23, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Bear in mind that, while each article stands on its own, where RS narratives are clear, we use straightforward headings, not confusing or evasive euphemisms. See, for example, this one. SPECIFICO talk 21:36, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

"where RS narratives are clear, we use straightforward headings" About half of the American population assert that Trump is not racist. A section heading of "Racism" is tantamount to an assertion of the existence of racism made in Wikipedia's voice. Bus stop (talk) 21:54, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I daresay You're overthinking this. The section is about what RS describe. It describes racist speech, encitement, and actions. Elsewhere, the article describes racist and xenophobic policies. The "existence of racism" is not disputed. What we are properly avoiding in this article is to tag him "a racist" just as in my view, we should not say he has some kind of personality disorder, or that he's "a liar" even though we document a vast number of lies as well as various erratic behaviors. The text already presents verified racist behavior. So the "existence of racism" thing is already in the article. That's not, and should not be taken as name-calling. Just as whatever ultimate section header must not be name-calling. But his speech and actions are not opinions or, so delicately put, "views". Perhaps you can suggest a more fitting word than "views"? I thought "themes" might be an improvement. SPECIFICO talk 22:38, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

In such a usage that would be an assertion. That would be an improper use of a section heading. All a section heading has to do is identify the contents of a section. And such an assertion would be in Wikipedia's voice. Let us go back to square one—what are you trying to accomplish? As I understand it your objection to "Racial views" as a section heading is that the section by-and-large does not contain Trump's racial views. But the purpose of section headings is to help readers find what they are looking for on a page. Any reader interested in reading our material pertaining to the possibility that Trump may be a racist would know exactly where to look. The section heading "Racial views" would strongly alert a reader that they might consider looking at the section called "Racial views" if they want to read material on this topic. If I misunderstand what you are trying to accomplish please correct me. As for me overthinking this, the article says in the "Racial views" section "In a June 2018 Quinnipiac University poll, 49 percent of respondents believed that Trump was racist, while 47 percent believed he was not." The assertion is presented in the "Racial views" section that "47 percent believed [Trump] was not [racist]". Why don't we consider titling this subsection "Trump is not racist"? One of the reasons we don't consider doing that is because section headings are not for making assertions. Section headings are for identifying content. Bus stop (talk) 23:00, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

@Bus stop: "About half of the American population assert that Trump is not racist." What does that have to do with anything? Countless reliable sources confirm that Trump is a racist who makes racist comments and performs racist acts, and the fact that "half of the America population" assert otherwise reflects poorly on them and their lack of understanding. The fact is that "Racial views" doesn't make any sense at all, so I think we need to agree that it needs to change. I'm just not yet sure what it needs to be changed to. "Racism and xenophobia" is a generic term that seems to suit, since the section essentially documents Trump's racist and xenophobic acts. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:19, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Is this a vote yet? I opt for anything that explicitly states "racist" or "racism". "Racial" is PR spin from his political supporters and should be avoided, you could apply that to a section about Ghandi's statements. --Fæ (talk) 16:48, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

@Scjessey: you say [t]he fact is that "Racial views" doesn't make any sense at all. What about the section heading "Racial views" doesn't make sense? I agree with the above noted observation that "this discussion is a solution in search of a problem". The referred-to section of the article addresses opinions. The section heading for that section of the article should neither imply that Trump is or isn't racist. The oblique section heading is best and we already have a section heading that addresses the subject of that section obliquely. The good thing about "Racial views" is that it does not imply that Trump is not racist and it does not imply that he is racist. The "Allegations" suggestions above imply (slightly) that he is racist. Why would "allegations" be made unless they had some substance to them...where there's smoke, there's fire...etc. Bus stop (talk) 16:53, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Bus Stop, "racially charged actions", well-sourced, is not an "opinion". Conspiracy theories such as Birtherism are not an "opinion." Settling civil right suits with the US Department of Justice is not an "opinion." And there's further context against "opinion" elsewhere in the article. There are several points from various editors in this thread that may bear comment, but saying everything is just an "opinion" doesn't seem to address the crux. SPECIFICO talk 18:47, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

SPECIFICO—the section that is presently named Racial views is a section that addresses the opinion, held by some, that Trump is a racist president. As farfetched as that opinion may be, there are those that level that charge. But it is only an opinion, and it is only maintained by some people. As the Racial views section concedes, forty-seven percent of those in a Quinnipiac poll found that Trump was not racist.[3] We are discussing opinions. The section heading for a section that addresses the opinion that the president may be racist should use noncommittal language as concerns the question being addressed. We have an entire article addressing opinions on the topic called Racial views of Donald Trump. But section headings are supposed to help readers with navigating articles; section headers are not supposed express opinions. I've posed a question like this before: would any reader encounter any difficulty finding the section of the article addressing the possibility of racism in the subject of the article using the present subject header of "Racist views"? If not then could you please tell me what you are trying to accomplish by for instance suggesting a section header of "Racism"? Such a section header would be tantamount to an assertion. It is not a complete sentence but it suggests that herein one can read about the racist dimension of this president. I think that could only serve to embarrass Wikipedia and prove that we are non-neutral. We already have the best possible section header if neutrality is important to us. Bus stop (talk) 20:27, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

"Racial views" doesn't represent what the section contains. It falsely implies that we are talking about Trump's views on racism. And honestly, this "it's only an opinion" line you are peddling is absurd. A preponderance of reliable sources clearly and unequivocally call Trump out for outright racism and xenophobia because of what he has said and done. You are pretending that Trump's racism and xenophobia aren't established facts that are well documented and well sourced. I don't even know why you could possibly think this is in doubt. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:42, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

You say "Racial views" doesn't represent what the section contains. It falsely implies that we are talking about Trump's views on racism. What does the phrase "Trump's views on racism" even mean? Are you asking—does Trump view racism as a good thing or a bad thing? Obviously you are not asking that question. The underlying question of the section is whether Trump is racist or not. The underlying question is not whether he views racism as a good thing or a bad thing. As a section header "Racial views" identifies the area of our article that addresses this issue, and it does so without offering an opinion on the underlying question—which concerns whether Trump is racist or not. Bus stop (talk) 21:27, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I support the title "Allegations of racism". Adhere to "value-laden" labels per WP:RACIST and never present it in WikiVoice. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:30, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Atsme—why would "Allegations of racism" be preferable to "Racial views"? Bus stop (talk) 02:42, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

It suggests a constant that implies Trump is racist. His critics/detractors allege racism because he has said things some believe to be racially insensitive or discriminatory but as most have come to learn, he has said alot of things that are considered insensitive and discriminatory about different people regardless of their color or gender. Trump does not discriminate - the very essence of racism is discrimination. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 04:11, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

You don't have to convince me Trump is not racist. I don't think Trump is racist. I'll go along with your reasoning. I'll switch my support to a section heading reading "Allegations of racism". Bus stop (talk) 04:31, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Two things. First, regardless of whether or not you or I think Trump is racist, the sources unambiguously establish that the racists think he is one of them. Be it "very fine people on both sides", rapists, "go back where you came from", "shithole countries" or whatever, his attitude to anyone who is not pearly white is, whatever its actual motivation, functionally indistinguishable from racism. Second, Trump has a long history of documented actual racism. Sure, maybe he's an equal opportunities thug - he did, after all, remove the mandatory braille labels in Trump Tower's elevator cars - but the sources say pretty clearly that racism is a thing he does. It's also true that many Republicans do not think he is racist. That's hardly a surprise: they didn't think Jim Crow laws were racist either. Guy (Help!) 17:24, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Trump is not going to be a saint. He is going to speak colloquial English. That is who he is. You say Be it "very fine people on both sides", rapists, "go back where you came from", "shithole countries" or whatever, his attitude to anyone who is not pearly white is, whatever its actual motivation, functionally indistinguishable from racism. His detractors are going to construe that as racism. I think he is a president who is cognizant of the world he lives in, with war, poverty, terrorism, disease, etc. In my opinion his speech can most appropriately be characterized as vulgar. He is not a saint. Bus stop (talk) 18:01, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

• Honestly, I think changing it will just invite further warring. "Racial views of Donald Trump" is accurate and neutral - as of course is the fact that the racial views of Donald Trump are described by all but sycophants as racism. Guy (Help!) 13:55, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

On the topic of honesty, it would be more honest to change to "The least racist person there is anywhere in the world", so we can fully explore exactly how the President is what he claims to be. It benefits from being non-controversial as a direct published quote, and at least Wikipedians will enjoy it more than the current meaningless POTUS PR spin and language misuse of "racial views". --Fæ (talk) 14:01, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Obviously the humour was lost in translation there, I didn't laugh. Guy (Help!) 17:18, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

• Got to support "Allegations of racism and xenophobia" as that is what they all are allegations and opinions. For me you can also remove the xenophobia which is 'fear or hatred of foreigners, people from different cultures, or strangers' , he is clearly not that, he is focussed on immigration concerns. Govindaharihari (talk) 17:12, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

• I agree. There is so little reason to believe Trump exhibits xenophobia. Bus stop (talk) 17:47, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Fæ—when he says that he is the least racist person there is anywhere in the world, that is not to be taken literally. The statement is hyperbole. I think either "Racial views" or "Allegations of racism" would be the best possible section headers. I think that "Racism" as a section header would be far from neutral. Bus stop (talk) 17:29, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

• I would support "Allegations of racism", but we can't just ignore this New York Times piece which adds a little bit of nuance. I cannot find this mentioned anywhere in the article, though I may have missed it. Please read if you have not: Circling the Square of President Trump’s Relationship With Race. There are allegations that he is racist, but there are also assertions he is not. One example from the NYT piece: Kara Young, a biracial [aka, "black"] model who dated Trump, said she "never heard him say a disparaging comment towards any race”. petrarchan47คุก 01:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Petrarchan, IMO you totally missed the boat when it comes to Kara Young's comments. What you should note from the NYT article you suggested we all read is this comment:

"We went to the U.S. Open once, and a lot of black people came because it was Venus and Serena,” she said, referring to the Williams sisters. “He was impressed that a lot of black people came to the U.S. Open because they were playing." Black people, he seemed to think, did not watch tennis. Gandydancer (talk) 20:40, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps in years prior when they weren't playing, there were far fewer black people in attendance. Merely noticing that reality isn't racism. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:57, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 August 2019

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.

---

75.172.212.65 (talk) 00:58, 18 August 2019 (UTC) As is precedent with all other presidents and public figures, please include Donald Trump full post-secondary education in the infobox. Education field should read "Fordham University (transferred) < break > University of Pennsylvania (B.S.)". Wharton is a constituent school of University of Pennsylvania. The degree is not conferred by Wharton, it is conferred by the University of Pennsylvania i.e. he literally received his degree from the University of Pennsylvania. 75.172.212.65 (talk) 00:58, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Consensus is the "current consensus" list at point 18. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:17, 18 August 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.

RfC: Should the section Donald Trump#Health and lifestyle include a paragraph about his mental health?

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.

---

Back in 2017 a consensus developed on the article talk page that even though there was a great deal being said about his mental health in sources, we should not say anything on the subject in the article. In 2018 an article Health of Donald Trump was written which was primarily about his mental health. In June 2019 that article was AfD’ed, with the result to merge it to the Donald Trump article. Since the article being merged was primarily about mental health, a paragraph on the subject was developed at the Trump talk page and added to the article; it is now the final paragraph in the “Health and lifestyle” section. Some people have deleted it or objected to it, so we are seeking a definitive answer to the question: should we have a paragraph about his mental health? The question here is whether we should have something or nothing. Exact wording can be debated later, if the conclusion here is that, yes, we should say something on the subject. In the meantime the paragraph at issue should remain in the article.-- MelanieN (talk) 01:05, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Background

• Since 2017 the Donald Trump article has had a talk-page consensus to “Omit any opinions about Trump's psychology held by mental health academics or professionals who have not examined him.” Previous discussions: link 1, July 2017; link 2, July-August 2017

• In July 2018 an article Health of Donald Trump was created. Originally it was entirely about his mental health. [4] Later some material about his physical health was added, primarily copied from the Donald Trump article, but the bulk of the article was still about mental health.[5] On June 6, 2019 the article was nominated for deletion. On June 13 the AfD was closed as “merge to Donald Trump;” the closure included a detailed analysis of the discussion and options, and a later addendum caveat that “the editors who carry out the merger should probably consider a very selective merge that only includes the good material supported by top-notch sources.”

• June 13 - 24: Upon the close of the AfD there was a discussion here at Talk:Donald Trump] [6] about how to do the merge, resulting in the final paragraph currently in the “Health and lifestyle” section.

• June 28 - July 14, a discussion [7] about whether and how to reword the earlier consensus, which had been not to say anything about mental health; result was to replace it with “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.”

• July 10 - 11, another discussion [8] because some people were deleting the mental health paragraph from the article. Since none of the previous discussions had been formal RfCs it was suggested that we should have one. This is it. MelanieN (talk) 00:52, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Pings

Participants in the “link 1” discussion, July 2017:  User:Carbon Caryatid, User:SPECIFICO, User:Objective3000, User:Mandruss, User:Markbassett, User:Power~enwiki, User:Snow_Rise, User:JFG -- MelanieN (talk) 01:05, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Additional participants in the “link 2” discussion, July-August 2017: User:BullRangifer, User:Hidden_Tempo, User:PackMecEng, User:Zbrnajsem, User:MelanieN, User:Tataral, User:The_Wordsmith -- MelanieN (talk) 01:05, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Participants in the June 2019 discussions: @BD2412, BobRoberts14, Atsme, Onetwothreeip, TParis, Jo-Jo Eumerus, Tataral, MrX, Scjessey, Markbassett, JFG, MONGO, Starship.paint, Mandruss, GreenMeansGo, and Ahrtoodeetoo: -- MelanieN (talk) 01:05, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Participants in the July 2019 discussion: same as above plus User:The Four Deuces, User:Cosmic Sans, User:Emir of Wikipedia, User:Amakuru -- MelanieN (talk) 01:05, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Support including something on the subject of mental health

• Support because of the decision to merge the other article into this one. Also because there are much more solid sources now than there were in 2017. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:00, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

  You (and several others voting support) actually argued on Talk:Hillary Clinton/Archive 41#Obama's former personal physician questions Clinton's health that commentary by physicians about Hillary Clinton’s health should not be included because they have not personally examined her and because it is against medical ethics. I think this raises questions.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:54, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support. Trump himself has addressed his mental health, publicly describing himself as a "stable genius" on multiple occasions. That did not occur in a vacuum. Wikipedia is not the APA's enforcer, so it is not our job to bar sources reporting on evaluations of the subject by third-party observers. Of course, it is very common to include such evaluations of important figures, with our own articles containing evaluations of the mental health of Abraham Lincoln and of Adolf Hitler, and we even have an article on the mental health of Jesus. All of these are sourced to people who had not made first-hand examinations of the patient. bd2412 T 01:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

  WP:BLP does not apply to Abraham Lincoln and Adolf Hitler. On Talk:Hillary Clinton/Archive 41#Obama's former personal physician questions Clinton's health you argued that neither Trump’s nor Hillary Clinton’s health should be discussed/included in an encyclopedia when arguing against negative health claims being added to Clinton’s biography. Now you say the opposite on Trump’s biography page...--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:59, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support. Firstly, as noted above, there was already an article written and active, until it was merged here. By not including any mention, in effect it would be an underhanded way of deleting an existing article. Secondly, it is too big of an issue, and has been mentioned as a serious topic pertaining to Donald Trump for at least 35 years.Stevenmitchell (talk) 20:16, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Extended discussion about "stable genius" ~Awilley (talk) 00:40, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Being considered "genius" is not a matter at all of mental health. That regards intellectual ability, not mental ability. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:42, 18 July 2019 (UTC) Right, but "stable" is specifically about mental health. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:46, 18 July 2019 (UTC) It's clearly being used as an adjective to describe "genius". Either way, somebody saying that their own mental health is fine is surely not justification for assessing that here. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC) As I said, that did not occur in a vacuum. There is a well-reported reason why Trump decided to publicly declare himself a 'stable genius', is there not? bd2412 T 02:11, 18 July 2019 (UTC) Trump clearly was referring to mental stability, mental health. Before he shortened his description of himself to "very stable genius" he listed the two attributes separately: "Actually, throughout my life, my two greatest assets have been mental stability and being, like, really smart."[9] Of course his saying that is not justification for including something on the subject; on the contrary, IMO we would only include the "stable genius" comments if they were needed to provide his response to people questioning his mental health. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:15, 18 July 2019 (UTC) No, "stable" and "genius" is in response to Fire and Fury claims that he changes his mind a lot and is stupid. Trump in part said that was disproved by his success in business, television and being elected “I think that would qualify as not smart, but genius....and a very stable genius at that!” And no, "stupid" is not about Mental Health. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:42, 18 July 2019 (UTC) Markbassett, the first sentence (and your argument) in your above comment is inaccurate, per Trump's own tweet and the reliable sources. The "stable genius" quote was from Tweet #3 from a series of 3 tweets in 10 minutes. [10] Tweet #2 has Trump saying my two greatest assets have been mental stability and being, like, really smart. [11] Here are what the sources say: NPR Trump claimed that his ability to win the presidency on the first attempt shows he is mentally stable. Yahoo News boasting about his intelligence and mental stability. CNN President Trump praised his own mental stability. starship.paint (talk) 10:02, 18 July 2019 (UTC) The fact that Trump has made comments about his own mental health is not an invitation to open the door to fringe theories - and the idea that one can diagnose a patient they've never examined or met is certainly not an idea endorsed by any major psychiatric association. The APA considers it unethical and unreliable, and as such, we should not accord it significant weight in the article. I am not aware of any major organization, APA or otherwise, that endorses this kind of diagnosis as scientifically valid. Cosmic Sans (talk) 15:21, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

• Highly conditional support. Now, clearly anything added to the article which touches upon this subject needs to be scrupulously vetted for appropriate WP:WEIGHT and needs to fully attributed. Indeed, I would even go as far as to say that the burden for inclusion for statements along these lines should be a particularly high standard of consensus--if for no other reason than the stability of any such content. All of that said, this is clearly the only one of the two options that is policy consistent. We do not omit major topics concerning an article subject which are discussed in huge numbers of sources on the matter simply because the topic is politically or socially charged. Rather, we instead provide the span of perspectives on the topic, in proportion to their weight in WP:RS.

Likewise, anyone asserting we cannot mention any expert observation because of the Goldwater Rule has wandered into one hell of a non-sequitor argument: Wikipedia is not bound in any shape, manner or form by the APA's policies and professional guidelines. We have our own policies to determine whether content is included and those are the ones representing this the broader consensus of this community by which we must abide. The fact of the matter is, many experts have provided perspectives on the topic of Trump's mental health, and these have frequently come in the form of reliable sources. What that means for their professional standing and ethics is an issue for them to resolve among themselves, the bodies that license them and the professional associations to which they belong. And FYI, as someone who is familiar with APA standards and how they play out with regard to published statements, I think it needs to be said that the Goldwater Rule is not as inviolable as some here seem to think it is: it does happen more than occasionally that a mental health expert violates it, and there has long been debate as to whether it is an appropriate. Furthermore, not all psychological nor mental health experts are members of the APA to begin with. Some here seem to think that it is the licensing authority for psychiatrists in the U.S., but that is not the case: the state in which they practice licenses psychiatrists. The APA merely advances the interests of the profession as a whole, but there is absolutely no professional obligation to belong to the APA, and even if a scholar or practitioner who belonged to the APA was to choose to leave the organization because of a disagreement over Goldwater Rule or any other difference of opinion over ethics, they would remain a completely licensed and credible expert in their field. Being a member of the APA is more about professional networking and advocacy, but not every board certified practitioner or researcher chooses to join and we can safely presume that some of those who have commented on Trump's mental state are in fact not members. The same is true of the AMA (the other professional association to embrace the Goldwater Rule): only 25% of American doctors are currently a member of the AMA.

None of the last paragraph should even matter to our analysis here, of course--this should all be decided by WP:WEIGHT and not some idiosyncratic reading of the APA's stance on appropriate diagnosis. And this would be true even if the APA was a licensing authority. But I've seen so many comments here that clearly evidence deep confusion over what the APA is and what its relationship is to experts in the psychological and psychiatric sciences, so clearly all of this needs to be pointed out. Also, not every person who has commented about Trump's mental health is a psychiatrists, and among those who are, not all of them are Americans, so, really, let's please jettison this whole WP:Original research line of reasoning that Goldwater Rule prevents us from discussing topics of WP:DUE importance. It really, really has no substantive relation to how our policies require us to evaluate this issue.

That lengthy caveat and clarification done, I want to end by returning to my original point, which bears reiterating: while there is no policy reason prohibiting discussion of Trumps mental health and plenty of WP:WEIGHT argument for doing so under our policies, this should all still be approached slowly and cautiously with regard to what is added. This is largely the standard on this article already, I believe, but I believe all content as to this subject should be vetted here before being added, and subject to an !vote that should have a substantial majority for anything added. Where available, counter-arguments to those who have sought to judge Trump's mental state from a afar should be given, and the critical mpressions themselves need to be scrupulously attributed, with lots of detail as to the degree of direct contact, or absence thereof, of any expert opining on the subject to the man's psychiatric health and psychological (and particularly biopsychological) qualities. Snow ^{let's rap} 05:08, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support. It's WP:DUE with significant coverage in reliable sources, and because of WP:PUBLICFIGURE, deserves mention even if it is negative. starship.paint (talk) 10:07, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Just too much serious coverage to completely ignore, and the two step process provides the ability to carefully word an addition without the distraction of keeping no addition as an option. And as stated, this sets no precedent as different articles are different articles and no article is carved in stone. O3000 (talk) 12:30, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support - It seems weird to me that one of the most discussed aspects of the Trump presidency isn't mentioned on Wikipedia. I understand that some people are squeamish about this, because many anti-Trump sources have taken the topic and blown it out of proportions, but I'm sure a consensus can be reached on a paragraph that describes the media allegations, the medical testing Trump has undertaken and the rebuttal of the claims. As long as WP:NPOV is maintained, reliable sources are used, and the added text has the appropriate length and position in the article (not a whole section, not in the lead etc) this should be fine. PraiseVivec (talk) 12:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support. Not only that was widely discussed in sources/media, but this is the most important question about the "Leader of the Free World". My very best wishes (talk) 15:23, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

• Strong Support his mental health has been questioned...he is president and has his finger on the button.2600:1702:2340:9470:D495:B1E0:9991:40F0 (talk) 15:38, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

• Reluctantly support - As long as it's well-sourced to reliable, neutral outlets and the section doesn't get conspiratorial, then I'll support it. If we start talking about fringe ideas like Trump having dementia, then I oppose. Jdcomix (talk) 16:09, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support as long as it remains appropriately weighted and NPOV. I don't want to see another coatrack.--v/r - TP 23:01, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
• Strong Support based on the clear weakness of the arguments presented against it and the overwhelming, clear-cut coverage requiring inclusion. Coverage is extensive and enduring, and that's all that matters. Concerns below about the Goldwater Rule are silly - we're not a newspaper ourselves. We can and should report about that rule, but extensive long-term coverage about someone's mental health in high-quality mainstream reliable sources obviously belongs in their article. We have to be careful to use the sources appropriately and reflect what they actually say, but that's always the case. The attempts to argue that the mere discussion of this is WP:FRINGE likewise seem bizarre - the sources covering it from a credible perspective are extensive and well within the mainstream; there's no reasonable way to characterize the mere discussion of Trump's mental health as WP:FRINGE. EDIT: Support upgraded to strong based on the sheer, flat weakness of the arguments being presented against this. EDIT: Note the reply to this, which unambiguously asks for this material to be omitted for non-policy-based reasons. --Aquillion (talk) 23:16, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Extended discussion PackMecEng (talk) 02:50, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Did you read what the oppose people were saying about the Goldwater rule? PackMecEng (talk) 23:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC) I did; their arguments are so weak and so manifestly not grounded in policy that I'd suggest the closing admin disregard any !vote that relies primarily on discussing that rule. Our job, as an encyclopedia, is to reflect what the reliable sources say, with the emphasis and weight contained in those sources. When a source does cover something (as is the case here), the question of whether they should have covered it is entirely irrelevant, and efforts to argue from that perspective are manifestly an attempt to substitute what the sources say with the editor's own personal judgement and opinions. Everyone citing the Goldwater Rule below is implicitly acknowledging that, yes, the sources do justify (and, indeed, require) inclusion, but that they personally feel they should not because they would prefer that the sources adhere to this rule (or because, in one memorable example, the sources are apparently a crime against "human decency". My word.) I strongly advise that you go through your own !vote and remove the reference to it - you weaken your own position by making that argument; what you say there amounts to "I dislike what this source says, so we should disregard it." Declaring an entire source to be invalid because you, personally, feel that they ought to adhere to a particular rule unrelated to our reliable sourcing guideline is honestly shocking coming from an experienced editor. You know better than this. Erase that silliness and, if you can, try to replace it with an argument actually grounded in policy; RFCs are not votes, so presenting an 'argument' that weak is no better than presenting nothing at all. --Aquillion (talk) 07:28, 19 July 2019 (UTC) Reading your arguments here it still seems like you did not. You are only weakening your positing with these baseless attacks. I strongly suggest you revise your attitude here. PackMecEng (talk) 15:04, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support - Any argument for inclusion rests on WP:WEIGHT, and significant media coverage settles that argument conclusively. What form that inclusion takes is going to be a much harder discussion, although I could've sworn we'd already had it! -- Scjessey (talk) 12:31, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support - All things considered, I've long thought inclusion of mental health issues are important in Trump's bio and none of the comments that suggest otherwise have changed my mind. Gandydancer (talk) 13:54, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support - This RfC is set up as either nothing or something more than nothing. As such, obviously support. There are piles of reliable sources for this. If Wikipedia were itself a member of the APA, then there would be a point to discussing the Goldwater Rule. However, we aren't governed by the policies of a particular association, we're governed by Wikipedia policies like WP:NPOV/WP:RS. And by those, there's clearly sufficient coverage to justify something. That doesn't mean anything (let's not get conspiratorial or start making big claims in Wikipedia's voice, certainly), but this RfC isn't a choice between nothing and going nuts (so to speak); it's about nothing vs. !nothing. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:05, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support. First sentence of the nutshell at WP:NPOV: "Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias." Opposing !votes effectively say this article should not do that. Second sentence in the nutshell at WP:NPOV: "This applies to both what you say and how you say it." That will be the subject of follow-on discussion if this RfC passes. That discussion will be more complex and nuanced, but this one is an easy call. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:57, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support - This must be properly sourced and be given due weight.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:50, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support. This was already decided following extensive discussion just weeks ago, and a text has been agreed upon. I frankly don't see the need for a rehash of the debate now. None of the supposed "arguments" against the inclusion of this material are based on, or have anything to do with, Wikipedia policy. (Personally I would prefer not to frame it as a discussion of his "mental health", but rather of his "personality" which is a broader topic than any mental illnesses, and which doesn't even have to mean that he has any mental illness.) --Tataral (talk) 09:46, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support, per MelanieN, Aquillion, Tataral and others. Maybe move "Mental health" to "Public profile" for now? We’re not proposing to make "armchair" medical and/or psychiatric diagnoses, we’re stating what RS are reporting. Trump is a public figure, so—in Wikipedia’s words—BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it., i.e., it’s also WP:DUE. RS are not bound by the APA’s opinion that physician members of the APA [should] refrain from publicly issuing professional medical opinions about individuals that they have not personally evaluated in a professional setting or context, and neither are we. When someone is an entertainer or a random person yelling at a street sign, who cares how mentally unhinged he talks or sounds; when someone in a powerful position does it and it is widely reported on RS, it’s noteworthy and WP:DUE.

Like, totally, for sure. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:47, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Starts at 6:24 A man I know who I don’t like, a businessman, very, very successful business, one of the most successful men, I don’t like him, never liked him, he never liked me either by the way, in fact I would go a step further, he can, he cannot stand me, and I saw him about two months ago, and he came up to me, I said how you doing, very warm, whatever, you know, hey, how you doing, ugh let’s get out of here, and he said, I’m doing good, you’re doing good, I said, yeah, I said, you know you don’t like me and I don’t like you, I never have liked you and you never have liked me, but you’re gonna support me because you’re a rich guy and if you don’t support me you’re gonna be so goddamn poor you’re not gonna believe it. (Crowd cheers) (Finally being able to put the 10-finger touch typing to good use)

Must be 5 o’clock somewhere, so it’s not too early for me to look at the Jim Beam. It’s American, and the word is "confused". (Jack Upland, wanna change your vote?) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:47, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

• Strong Support This issue is relevant and needs to be in the article. 2600:1702:2340:9470:ECEE:136B:4E62:62DB (talk) 18:34, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support (Summoned by bot) Yes, obviously. Relevant and Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. We are not doctors. We reflect what is in reliable sources. Lastly, the decision in the AfD was to merge, not delete. So merge away. Coretheapple (talk) 17:11, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support per WP:DUE. If reliable sources are reporting his mental health, in a non trivial manner, it would violate WP:NPOV to not include this. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 18:56, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support for the reasons stated by Snow Rise. Mgasparin (talk) 21:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support Include/being the mentioned paragraph (Mental Health) in this article can be more helpful and appropriate, since there can be found many diverse sources which have covered/discussed about this subject --concerning uncertainty of his mental health-- as a result, include the mentioned paragraph would be more positive/related. Meanwhile, I presume, apart from having sufficient relevant sources, this matter of his mental health seems to become as a common and famous speech/discussion in common societies/media; plus, I assume his specific behavior (at some of times) might increase the need of such section or paragraph, as well. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 19:41, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Oppose including anything on the subject of mental health

• Split to Lifestyle of Donald Trump, along with other sections. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:10, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

• I would agree with a split, but health issues are not really "lifestyle" matters; I would prefer Personal life of Donald Trump. bd2412 T 01:32, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

• I don't see how health can't be considered a matter of lifestyle, but I'm not particularly concerned about the name of the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:44, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

• The problem with that is WP:WEIGHT; if we do decide to include this or that detail about the subject of Trump's mental health, then the issues is surely most relevant to articles focused on his public duties rather than his personal life, the former being the context which in which virtual all sources discuss the man's mental well being. If we decide to discuss this topic at all, it will most certainly me at its maximum level of germane in the articles concerned with his life as a public figure and head of state, not the impacts that it has on his private life, a subject upon which sources addressing the topic are much more quiet. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:36, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose As these are armchair opinions rendered from afar which is widely disapproved of by the APA. I can elaborate in discussion below later.--MONGO (talk) 01:14, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - ^{Adding the following underlined comment 15:18, 20 July 2019 (UTC)} BLPN discussion determined the armchair diagnoses to be Coatrack. If this RfC favors support, we should limit inclusion to a summary of only those doctors who actually examined him, and avoid policy noncompliance per WP:EXCEPTIONAL I'm of the mind that we should be consistent regarding armchair diagnoses - see Hillary Clinton - despite what some in MSM were publishing (speculating), it was not included, and should not be. The same applies here. If we do include it here, that leaves other BLPs open to inclusion of similar speculation; i.e., sets a precedent. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:21, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I have never seen anything remotely like this in RS related to Hillary Clinton. In any case, this is WP:OTHERCONTENT O3000 (talk) 01:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Mental and armchair diagnoses, similar not other. Lots of coverage and concerns over abnormalities - limited mention. WaPo, CNN,NYT, JE. Guess it depends on how one frames the search. If you're looking for it, you'll find it. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 02:18, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Adding AfD amendment and prior consensus:

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

Policy based reason to exclude armchair diagnoses ^{added Atsme _Talk 📧 20:45, 20 July 2019 (UTC)} WP:EXCEPTIONAL - claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living people. This is especially true when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them. The prevailing view within the relevant community involves the doctor(s) who actually examined Trump, and the WH doctor said Trump “has absolutely no cognitive or mental issues”. The doctors who provided armchair diagnoses violated their own doctors' code of ethics. Footnote 9: "A conflict of interest involves the abuse – actual, apparent, or potential – of the trust that people have in professionals. The simplest working definition states: A conflict of interest is a situation in which financial or other personal considerations have the potential to compromise or bias professional judgment and objectivity. An apparent conflict of interest is one in which a reasonable person would think that the professional's judgment is likely to be compromised. A potential conflict of interest involves a situation that may develop into an actual conflict of interest. It is important to note that a conflict of interest exists whether or not decisions are affected by a personal interest; a conflict of interest implies only the potential for bias, not a likelihood.

• Oppose as unspecific This is asking for carte blanche 'a paragraph' without any specific on content or guidance to retrain things and that's just not a CONSENSUS on anything. We already have four other new paras from an AfD which largely happened because the page was viewed by as POV verging on ATTACK so caution is warranted -- and the AfD arbiter specifically cautioned about 'armchair diagnosis'. This just is not the WP:MAINSTREAM positions, it is a number of individual items that got some press time. So while it might be possible to mention events it would need to be handled as not authoritative and avoid doing OR SYNTH to portray it as an overall picture. In particular it should not state things as 'medical professionals', as it is false to portray a fringe group doing something typically regarded as unethical as the only such as if they were the WP:MEDRS community authority. So Consensus #21 should be in place as a control should a para be included. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:24, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Discussion about whether this RfC is asking for "carte blanche" ~Awilley (talk) 13:19, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

No, nobody is "asking for carte blanche". That argument appears to assume that a Support !vote means "I support a paragraph no matter what it says." That is not the case; rather, an Oppose !vote means "I oppose a paragraph no matter what it says." If you don't oppose a paragraph no matter what it says, your !vote here is Support (or abstain). ―Mandruss ☎ 03:12, 18 July 2019 (UTC) @Mandruss: Considering that some of those !supporters are the same people that forked the article to create a coatrack to write nearly an entire article on the subject, the concern seems reasonable.--v/r - TP 01:18, 19 July 2019 (UTC) User:Mandruss I am opposing the proposal as stated. DOUBLY opposing. It cannot have escaped your attention that I already made efforts to get some bounds above, with little success. Nor that consensus #21 had a clear focus that this lacks, with decided lack of people willing to go to guidance or topics when they have unlimited permission for “a para”. This topic has already been demonstrated repeatedly running amok, this is asking to start again with no idea of what is coming or excluded. I’m against buying things sight unseen, let alone buying “something” with no more description than “a paragraph” when it’s already proven a bad idea N times before. It’s a bad idea and a bad way to try and work editing. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:06, 19 July 2019 (UTC) @Markbassett: A pass of this RfC would green-light nothing except further discussion about the specifics. A support !vote says nothing except "I think the article should include something about this, now let's talk about what it should include." This is an acceptable alternative to diving right into the specifics with a "none" option, and saves considerable time if the outcome of that would be "none". It simplifies process by dividing a compound question into its two constituent components: (1) Should the article include anything about this? and (2) What should it include? This couldn't be clearer and I'm perplexed that you continue to have difficulty grasping the concept. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:52, 19 July 2019 (UTC) User:Mandruss NOTHING. Unless it’s a specific something, it can show no actual justification or discuss WEIGHT or ONUS or have any real discussion. Do #2 question directly and get something specific in content or guideline discussed, or it’s agreed to nothing and so you’re saying you’ve actually !voting for Oppose as well. This as stated is just lacking any limits or content which is why we got to here in the first place. We all can see the core is whether or not to let it be portrayed as a professional MEDRS opinion or not, or to observe BLP restraint on TABLOID entirely. But for this proposal as stated I say No to carte Blanche, vague undefined unlimited approvals - trying to have consensus that’s just not a consensus is a bad business, and I have no blind approval for “something” - there’s just nothing to approve OF, and a poor practice to dislike. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 11:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose The Goldwater rule prevents mental health professionals commenting on potential diagnoses of politicians and other people whom they have not personally examined, specifically the American Psychiatric Association, in the DSM V, describes such behaviour as unethical. So this clearly places this article into territory that quite substantially violates WP:LIBEL, WP:BLP, WP:NOTSPECULATION and WP:UNDUEWEIGHT.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 02:39, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

There is no evidence base for armchair psychiatry, it is WP:FRINGE pseudoscience and obvious quackery and deserves no weight whatsoever per WP:NPOV, specifically per WP:PSCI, especially in a WP:BLP. In fact, ‘armchair psychiatry’ is considered to be professional malpractice. Armchair psychiatry advocacy is very similar to advocacy arguments in favour of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth who similarly did not examine the raw evidence in person. Without a psychiatrist interviewing D. Trump himself, and perhaps also family members and friends of his, it is not possible to determine whether Trump’s behaviour (always being very positive and upbeat about himself and his allies and the very opposite with his critics) is calculated and learnt through his success in the business, legal and now political world or whether it is a personality trait or disorder. Ben Carson has said that D. Trump is a completely different person in private than he is in public.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:29, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

considered to be professional malpractice -> obviously, this isn't a universal consideration, surely everyone who spoke out against Trump didn't think it was. Also, if you're bringing in Ben Carson, let's see what others say. Trump biographer, Michael D'Antonio, at the start of the presidency. I've always seen him as a man who defines himself by the number of norms he can violate ... he uses gamesmanship instead of performance to reach his goal Look at how that turned out. If you think Trump is some kind of stable genius in private, read Mueller Report#President's efforts to curtail the Special Counsel investigation, look at what Lewandowski transcribed. Publicly attacking the investigation, privately attacking the investigation, in quite a silly manner. starship.paint (talk) 13:44, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

He is an obnoxious alpha male for sure in his approach to achieving his goals, but he is a living person and per BLP we cannot have armchair pseudo-diagnoses given to him. Maybe when he is deceased and BLP no longer applies we could relax sourcing standards to comment. There is also the risk these armchair psychiatrists are abusing their credentials because they oppose D. Trump politically, after all most of them signed a statement that they think he should be removed from office, which further weakens their position and sources.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:54, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Extended rebuttal (Goldwater rule and the applicability of cited policies) ~Awilley (talk) 13:28, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

"The Goldwater rule prevents mental health professionals commenting on potential diagnoses of politicians and other people whom they have not personally examined..." No it doesn't. Not even remotely. I think you should read the article you linked there and that for the American Psychiatric Association. The APA is an at-will organization: a psychiatrist does not need to be a member, and they are certainly not beholden to its ethical standards except where those standards overlap with the regulations and rules of professional conduct of the state or licensing authority they practice within/under. And even if the GOldwater rule did bind all psychiatric experts, it still wouldn't apply to us and whether we could cite anyone violating it. "So this clearly places this article into territory that quite substantially violates WP:LIBEL..." No it doesn't. Not even remotely. In order for WP:LIBEL to apply, a claim must be, y'know, libel. Under well-established Supreme Court jurisprudence, the U.S. constitution provides strong free speech protections for statements made about a public official: the party sued for libel must have operated with actual malice in order for the action to have merit, among various other requirements that I won't bog the talk page down with. But suffice it to say, this is not even in the same universe as libel. "...WP:BLP..." Not really: BLP only requires us to show an extra level of care when evaluating the WP:Verification of statements. It does not require us to omit critical observations of the article's subject. "...WP:NOTSPECULATION..." No it doesn't. Not even remotely. WP:NOTSPECULATION has absolutely nothing to do with the speculation of WP:Reliable sources: every day across thousands of articles on this project, we add statements from experts that are speculative in nature. WP:NOTSPECULATION is just another piped shortcut to WP:CRYSTAL, saying we can't guess at which topics will become notable. It has no relevance to the issue we are discussing here. "...and WP:UNDUEWEIGHT." This one is a little more subjective, but I daresay it's irrelevant as well. We have dozens of sources which have advanced perspectives on this topic. Seems pretty WP:DUE to me at some level. Of course, we can't make a concrete determination of whether something is due for inclusion and sufficiently sourced until we have a more specific idea of the text being proposed. And as I note above, that should be done with extreme care and an effort towards securing a broad consensus before anything is added. But some degree of discussion of this topic is certainly due, given the number of sources. Snow let's rap 05:38, 18 July 2019 (UTC) Well, yes my use of the word “prevent” should not be interpreted to literal extremes. Breaking the Goldwater rule or guidance will not result in the death penalty for said psychiatrists and their careers will likely still be there for them the next day. As for libel and actual malice, well okay, no one can tell what is going on in the minds of the psychiatrists making those statements so yeah hard to argue a case for libel here perhaps. As for the rest of what you wrote: we obviously have a difference of opinion and my oppose still stands because sources on this topic are highly speculative, undue and break BLP.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 05:50, 18 July 2019 (UTC) Well, as you say, we are in considerable disagreement over those points and whether or not the policies in question even apply. Nevertheless, I appreciate your very civil response, even though I disagreed with you at length in that post. On talk pages charged by contentious issues, there is always some worry that such posts will be received in the wrong light, so it is always nice when the response is measured, even if we don't immediately come to a meeting of the minds as to all points. Snow let's rap 21:44, 18 July 2019 (UTC) UNETHICAL thus FRINGE. The Goldwater rule isn’t literally blocking someone from armchair diagnosis, but it is clearly stated and it is widely accepted that doing so is unethical. The Goldwater rule had clear reasons for that. It is not a reasonable practice for diagnosis, it diminishes the respect for the profession, and it disrupts understanding and compassion for true mental illness. On a side note, that it smacks of thought police doesn’t help. Markbassett (talk) 11:49, 19 July 2019 (UTC) We're not here to protect the respect of the profession or adjudicate its ethical standards--and in any event, I assure you that if you think the Goldwater Rule is the default standard for all psychiatric experts who might be referenced in reliable sources, you really have very little knowledge about those topics upon which to base such an WP:OR opinion (which would not be a WP:Policy-based reason to object anyway). We're here to decide whether Wikipedia should report on what reliable sources report experts as saying once they have done so, not engage in the ethical debate as to whether or not they breached professional standards--clearly that is the purview of the experts themselves, their licensing authorities, and any professional organizations they may belong to that hold them to additional standards as a condition of membership (and by the way, only a subset of experts speaking about Trump in this respect are going to be members of the APA, anyway). That is all clearly collateral, completely irrelevant fixation. You say "UNETHICAL thus FRINGE" (which, there is no WP:UNETHICAL, so that's a strange way to phrase that). Anyway, please point to the place where community consensus has found that statements by experts are considered WP:FRINGE if they involve unethical behaviour. Is it a policy? A VPP discussion? An RfC at TW:FRINGE? Because I have to tell you, virtually every statement cited to a MEDRS source on this project would involve some degree of question as to ethics in some respect or another, and this project is gonna become very confused, misguided, fixated on things that are not its concern for purposes of constructing content, and ultimately impossible to form consensus on, if we suddenly appoint ourselves to the role of dismissing content if we don't like the professional conduct of cited experts. No thank you. Let's please keep discussion on our own internal policies. Snow let's rap 23:15, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose: A psychiatrist's diagnosis of an individual they've never personally examined is sometimes colloquially called an "armchair diagnosis." The APA, which is the largest and most authoritative group of psychiatrists in the world, considers such diagnoses to be unethical and unreliable. [[12]]. While it true that not all psychiatrists are members of the APA, it is nevertheless the preeminent organization for psychiatrists -- and, perhaps most importantly, there is NO association of psychologists or psychiatrists that have put their stamp of approval on armchair diagnoses. Therefore, idea that such diagnoses are valid constitutes a fringe theory that has no place in Wikipedia as per WP:DUE. It does not matter if Trump "opened the door", so to speak, by calling himself a "stable genius." (If a Wikipedia article says that the world is round, does that "open the door" to a thorough discussion of Flat Earth theory? Absolutely not.) On top of that, there are serious BLP concerns associated with using such a pseudoscience in an article about a living person. There's really no reason why this should be included at all. Even if you could muster some RS reporting on it, and even if there are a group of individuals who claim it, the policies WP:DUE and WP:BLP are not overriden. Cosmic Sans (talk) 13:39, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Extended discussion about WP:DUE, WP:FRINGE, and armchair diagnosis ~Awilley (talk) 01:01, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

@Cosmic Sans: - you have misrepresented WP:DUE, which is about the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. It's not about idea that such diagnoses are valid constitutes a fringe theory that has no place in Wikipedia. starship.paint (talk) 14:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC) @Starship.paint: - Hi, Starship - DUE does refer to WP:FRINGE and I think should be taken as a whole. The question is, what weight is due to a fringe theory that remains unaccepted by mainstream science? The answer is: not much. Perhaps a passing mention is appropriate along with the disclaimer that no psychiatric organization considers this valid. Cosmic Sans (talk) 15:10, 18 July 2019 (UTC) @Cosmic Sans: - hello, your ping didn't work. WP:DUE links to WP:FRINGE, but in the sense that (as written on WP:DUE) we want to avoid viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority or a theory that few or none currently believe. Are you arguing that these mental health views of Donald Trump are views of an insignificant minority? starship.paint (talk) 15:30, 18 July 2019 (UTC) @Starship.paint: Let me know if this ping works. Anyway, the idea that an "armchair diagnosis" can be valid is held by an extremely small minority. Can you point me to any major organization that believes this is a valid method of diagnosis? As far as I can tell, there are none, and in fact the major organizations consider this to be invalid and unethical. Cosmic Sans (talk) 15:35, 18 July 2019 (UTC) @Cosmic Sans: - no, your ping didn't work again, but I don't know why, you seemed to have done everything right. (1) American Psychoanalytic Association [13] leading psychiatry group has told its members they should not feel bound by a longstanding rule against commenting publicly on the mental state of public figures — even the president. (2) American Psychological Association “prefers” that its members not offer opinions on the psychology of someone they have not examined, it does not have a Goldwater rule and is not considering implementing one, an official told STAT. (3) Additionally, No other medical specialty has such a rule; cardiologists are not prohibited from offering their views of an official’s fainting spell, for instance, as long as they make clear that they have not examined the person. (4) opposition to the Goldwater rule has existed for years. starship.paint (talk) 15:51, 18 July 2019 (UTC) I'm not sure about the pings either. Anyway, the APASA rebutted the article you linked. In their words, "In an email to association members, our leadership did not encourage members to defy the “Goldwater Rule” which is a part of the ethics code of a different mental health organization, the American Psychiatric Association (APA)."[[14]]. But that's somewhat beside the point, because there is no organization saying that these armchair diagnoses can be accurate. I think it's very important to state, so I'll put it in bold: we can't conflate the "Goldwater" issue of whether such a viewpoint should be published, with the Wikipedia WP:DUE/WP:FRINGE issue of whether such a thing is considered a reliable and scientific viewpoint. And there's no major organization saying that this is a scientifically reliable thing to do. That's really the important part. The Goldwater Rule is related, but it's an aside because it's primarily concerned with whether something should be published or not. My problem is that no scientific organization has said that these armchair diagnoses are valid, and in fact, have condemned the reliability of those diagnoses. This is an entirely different issue as some internal code of disciplinary conduct where they would sanction members for engaging in that discussion. Cosmic Sans (talk) 17:14, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - For a veriety of reasons mentioned above. WP:BLP being the core but in that umbrella WP:BLPGOSSIP particularly. In a lot of these cases it is largely being presented as true even though it is impossible for them to say for sure that it is. That is because NONE of the people opining about his mental health have actually examined him. This goes back to the goldwater rule. I note above people are trying to refute that it applies here. That is technically true, but in practice horribly horribly wrong. The core of the argument of the goldwater rule is that it is unethical to diagnose someone without examining them. Why would we rely on the opinion of people not acting ethically? PackMecEng (talk) 14:57, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Extended discussion about the Goldwatter Rule, the Mental health of Jesus, and ethics ~Awilley (talk) 00:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

@PackMecEng: - the Goldwater Rule isn't a Wikipedia policy. I hope that you will be consistent and nominate articles like Mental health of Jesus for deletion, must have been very unethical of all these scholars to examine Jesus. starship.paint (talk) 15:02, 18 July 2019 (UTC) @Starship.paint: I noted that it is technically true, but also that in practice it is something an ethical person would follow. I am going to ignore your whataboutism as worthless. PackMecEng (talk) 15:07, 18 July 2019 (UTC) @PackMecEng: - on the other hand, arguing on ethical grounds does not provide 100% support to your view. The BBC [15] says Ethics doesn't give right answers ... Ethics can give several answers. Here's a different ethical argument: [16] there's another important tenet of medical ethics, experts in the field say, and that is the "duty to warn" – the obligation, despite the sacred doctor-patient relationship, that medical professionals let people know if they are in danger of being hurt by a mentally ill person. So your point that it is something an ethical person would follow - well, it depends. starship.paint (talk) 15:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC) @Starship.paint: Yeah not really though. I do no feel the duty to warn applys here. That is more someone is planning an imminent attack situation, not what Trump is doing. So that obviously do not apply here. PackMecEng (talk) 15:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC) @PackMecEng: - you (a mechanical engineer?) may feel that it doesn't apply, but some experts in the field (according to the above source) feel it applies. The same source I provided has a clinical professor saying It's whether he's dangerous or not, and the same source points out that Trump has a finger on the nuclear button. starship.paint (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2019 (UTC) @Starship.paint: Yeah still not really seeing it. That just sounds like standard alarmist with nothing to back it up after all these years. Basically the sky has not actually fallen despite the guesses to the contrary. PackMecEng (talk) 16:16, 18 July 2019 (UTC) @PackMecEng: - surely we don't need an actual nuclear disaster to confirm any mental illness? Do we require a suicide to diagnose depression? starship.paint (talk) 16:17, 18 July 2019 (UTC) I am not going to play the one of these things is not like the other game any longer. The examples you cite are not related to anything here. PackMecEng (talk) 18:04, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per User:Cosmic SansAdoring nanny (talk) 12:21, 19 July 2019 (UTC).
• Oppose. I'm against including such a paragraph. I just think it's unworthy and unencyclopedic. That said, I hesitated to post here, in the same section as Markbassett's IMO quite unreasonable argument that "This is asking for carte blanche" to write just anything about Trump's mental health. No, it clearly is not, but I'm still against it. Bishonen | talk 17:29, 19 July 2019 (UTC).
• Ugh. Yay, let's have more Trump. If our article states he claims of himself he's a "stable genius", I think that's all we need to say. Drmies (talk) 23:17, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't think anything concerning his "mental health" should be included in the article. The "professional opinions" are just his political opponents speculating about a patient they have never spoken to. That is not a real psychological evaluation at all. I was a clinical psychiatrist for years before retiring, and although I oppose Donald Trump, it is completely irrational to "evaluate" someone without examining them in person. Unless there are sources based on psychologists who interviewed him, nothing should be put in the article. 98.164.149.85 (talk) 20:23, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose — any opinions will just be speculation. Given the often expressed concern about article length, it's clear that this shouldn't be in the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:18, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose: Per User:Cosmic Sans -- since armchair psychiatry is pseudoscience, adding any instances of such would violate WP:PSCI. If Trump's doctor diagnoses him with a mental health disorder, that would be acceptable, but an analysis by someone who has never personally met or examined Trump is not. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:59, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose – I have been sitting on the fence for a long time on this question. Certainly the subject matter of Trump's mental health has been abundantly covered by RS, but on the other hand it's hard to de-associate such coverage from partisan politics of one side or the other. Let's face it: both claims of Trump being a "raving lunatic" or a "very stable genius" are ridiculous hyperbole, and Wikipedia is not a tabloid. Hence my opposition on BLP, NPOV and DUE WEIGHT concerns. The pseudoscience argument by 1990'sguy is also convincing. — JFG ^talk 12:05, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose – per comments from User:Markbassett, User:Cosmic Sans, User:1990'sguy and User:JFG. Mental health -and health diagnoses in general- might merit inclusion only when properly diagnosed by qualified experts, following proper examination, consultations and medical investigations. Armchair opinions, speculations or self-serving boasting (ie: "stable genius") do not qualify as diagnosis. --ColumbiaXY (talk) 05:43, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. A person's mental state can be devilishly difficult to define and reliable sources are unlikely to have anything unbiased to say on this subject. Bus stop (talk) 14:43, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose, as there are no reliable sources to use that I am aware of. The only reliable sources on Trump's mental health would necessarily be a mental health professional that has actually examined and professionally diagnosed any of Trump's potential mental health conditions in accordance with the standards and practices of the mental health profession. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:27, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Cosmic Sans. Hrodvarsson (talk) 04:26, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. No allusions or references to mental health problems unless properly diagnosed or there are documents released. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:29, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

RfC Discussion

• I’ve always argued against this. But, how long can you ignore an elephant when there exist so many specialists in large, herbivorous mammals raising their hands? I’ve switched to leaning toward inclusion for now and await arguments. O3000 (talk) 01:10, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
• @MelanieN: I don't think this was intentional but obviously the formulation of the RfC is misleading. The issue is not simply whether there should be any mention of his mental health, but the extent to which it is discussed. The concern is with the particular paragraph that is currently there. It would be quite awful if we resolved that mental health should be mentioned, and that result was used to justify opposing any significant change. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:19, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

123, I purposely made this RfC be just about whether to say anything on the subject, not about the wording- with the understanding that actual text should and will be discussed only if the decision is to include anything at all on the subject. There appears to be significant disagreement about that, and there's no point in arguing about content if there isn't going to be any content. IMO if this RfC was about not just whether to say something, but also what to say, it would go in six or seven different directions and be impossible to come to any conclusion. In this format, someone can say "I support including something, but not the paragraph which is currently there" or "I support this only if it says such-and-such and doesn't say so-and-so." If it turns out that consensus is not to include anything at all, we will have saved ourselves a lot of arguing about the exact content - and if the result is to include, there can and should be discussion about the actual wording. Possibly even a second RfC about the wording, if we can't reach consensus on our own. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:44, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

User:MelanieN What *is* the subject already came up -- e.g. 'stupidity' is not mental health. If it's just a para about mental health then ... we can say he passed the cognition test, and mention the conflicting diagnosis offered in The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump, but other items are not included. Markbassett (talk) 03:02, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

• • It should also be noted that a decision made today can not be binding on future events, for example, if future determinations are made about the subject's mental health. bd2412 T 01:34, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
• My objection was the way the mental health claims were presented. Trump certainly has narcissistic tendencies but most experts would not support the claim that he has NPD. TFD (talk) 01:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

No? Check out the defining characteristics. Sound familiar? -- MelanieN (talk) 22:14, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Now that was sure interesting. Thanks Mel. It's sorta creepy to see it all laid out like that... Gandydancer (talk) 16:31, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I have read the criteria before and yes some of it sounds like Donald, but..... My problem is how does anyone distinguish between what is his core personality and what is strategic behaviour that he learnt in the business world, legal/litigation arena and now the political sphere — to always talk yourself and business proposals up, not admit to failure, whilst highlighting and belittling your opponents. I mean he did amazing as a business man and won the USA presidency so of course he is going to continue his winning behaviours of: alpha male, always be very positive about yourself and allies and very negative towards those that attack you. Ben Carson and others have stated Donald Trump is a very different person when you meet him in private and described a personality opposite to narcissism. And the point of this is why armchair diagnoses are a bad idea because a psychiatrist often needs to interview family members about how they behave in private. Armchair diagnoses of politicians are also especially bad as psychiatrists are prone to personal political bias as well.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:35, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

• User:MelanieN I don't think an empty consensus really can help anything or even be much of a real consensus. It would have been better to do RFC with something about the nature of what the para is to be or some guiding limits -- some of the actual topics up in dispute before.
  • 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

  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:30, 18 July 2019 (UTC)*

  There is nothing wrong with a simple include paragraph/omit paragraph !vote. If the result is omit paragraph we needn't discuss specifics, so doing so at this juncture might be said to put a cart before its horse. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

  No, the unspecific nature is an issue. Without saying otherwise what 'mental health' is --- this consensus would then only refer to a paragraph of statements by medical professionals. Anything else - such as intelligence or memory -- have already been up as just not 'mental health'. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:55, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

  You are completely misreading and misrepresenting the situation of this RfC. See my reply in the preceding section. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:18, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

  @Mandruss: Markbassett has done that here and here. It's getting disruptive. They are insisting that anything that doesn't consider each of the above points isn't valid consensus.--v/r - TP 01:22, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

  User:Mandruss and User:TParis - Yes, my concern before was the unspecific carte Blanche of just ‘a paragraph’, and I started a thread looking for specifics. Now, upon request for comment of MelanieN I gave it, and to Mandruss asking I confirmed that I still have it as a strong concern. Now please AGF and accept that no wording or guidance content is a voiced concern. Settling any of the unresolved topics listed from prior debates would do, or something new that is specific. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:04, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

  Except you're still demonstrating "I didn't hear that" behavior. An exact paragraph was proposed and !voted on. We came to a consensus on its content. You could answer your questions above simply by reading the paragraph and noting which content was included and which wasn't. I believe the exact wording was proposed by MelanieN. You still harping on this issue, despite everyone else ignoring you or telling you to drop it, is disruptive. AGF isn't a shield that you can be disruptive and keep hiding behind.--v/r - TP 13:42, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

• My main objection, as stated in my vote, is that "armchair diagnoses" are generally agreed to be unethical and unreliable and are therefore a fringe theory that should be excluded as per WP:DUE. The BLP concerns only amplify those issues. Cosmic Sans (talk) 13:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

• Trump is an onerous person, but it is inappropriate to turn speculations into statements regarding his mental health. On the other hand, it is an objective fact that Trump critics have frequently alleged mental health issues in highly circulated publications. (For example, since they don't have a staff psychiatrist who has treated Trump, the New York Times is not a reliable source on Trump's mental health but a high profile publication containing allegations.) So any paragraph (by which I mean no more than two sentences) regarding the mental health allegations surrounding Trump should be framed in the context of "critics of Trump have speculated about his having mental health issues" with a couple citations (not five to twenty).

Regarding the existing paragraph, it should be dramatically pruned. Only the first and third sentences (regarding the petition) should be kept, but change the source of first sentence to include the other sources citing experts. All other sentences are loaded with UNDUE weight, including the Trump's claims about his own great mental health. Two sentences are more than enough to point out the questions raised and how they have influenced the political arena.--Saranoon (talk) 14:59, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I live in a town where homeless people walk down the street talking to themselves..it doesn`t take a psychiatrist to know they are mentally ill..I understand that those who oppose inclusion are not going to let it in without citation..that doesn`t make it less relevant..needs to be researched expanded and included (talk) 15:56, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

• I think the focus on the "Goldwater Rule" is missing the mark somewhat. The Goldwater Rule is a rule about publication. While it binds members of the APA, it does not bind Wikipedia. What does bind Wikipedia, though, is the fact that these armchair diagnoses are generally considered to be medically and scientifically unreliable. That is to say, the objection is not "the Goldwater Rule says you shouldn't do it" but rather that "it is not scientifically valid." The Goldwater Rule came about because these armchair diagnoses are scientifically questionable. It's not that they're scientifically questionable because the Goldwater Rule came about. It may seem like a minor distinction, but it's relevant to us because WP:DUE/WP:FRINGE instructs us not to allocate a significant deal of space to a fringe theory. Which is exactly what this is. The idea that an individual can be reliably diagnosed by someone who has never examined them is not a mainstream idea. There may be an internal debate within some organizations as to whether people should be allowed to express those opinions, but that's not the same debate as whether these opinions carry scientific validity to them. As of yet, nobody has produced a source claiming that these kind of diagnoses have scientific authority. Cosmic Sans (talk) 17:22, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Over 40,000 mental health professionals had, by April 2017, signed a petition stating that:

"My professional judgement is that Donald Trump manifests a serious mental illness that renders him psychologically incapable of competently discharging the duties of President of the United States. And I respectfully request him be removed from office, according to article 3 of the 25th Amendment."

It would, therefore, be a disservice to history for an encyclopedia to entirely overlook the issue, though I believe, like all things WP, that such inclusion should be stated in a concise and strictly factual way, supporting a WP:NPOV, with good sources included. Psychology Today published a fairly balanced discussion on it in March (https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/5-types-people-who-can-ruin-your-life/201903/malignant-narcissism-does-the-president-really), and scores of scholarly books are published on the subject (as a simple Google search of "Trump + Narcissism + PhD", and other variations, easily reveals), including such as Rocket Man: Nuclear Madness and the Mind of Donald Trump (2018), by veteran Johns Hopkins University Medical School psychology professor John Gartner, author of the 2017 petition. I'd say that scientific authorities are speaking loud and clear on the topic. Lindenfall (talk) 19:30, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

The "40,000 signatures" were from an online petition. There appears to be no verification that any of the people who signed the petition are actually mental health professionals. Otherwise, a handful of sensationalist books is not enough to counteract the clear scientific consensus that armchair diagnoses are not accurate. Cosmic Sans (talk) 20:12, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Cosmic Sans Firstly, the bottom line here has nothing to do with armchair diagnoses, which are inarguably unfit for WP, but addresses the fact of the U.S. president's apparant mental health being widely discussed and studied by professionals, based upon his actions and utterances — specific diagnosis is not the the true topic, and is not germane to the inclusion. Secondly, You are implying that Dr. Gartner, a widely respected psychotherapist and mental health authority, may have misled Chuck Schumer regarding the credentials of the petition's signees, who were each required to include their degree credentials upon signing, when he submitted it to the New York Senator, in 2017. (Psychology Today appears not to discount the petition's signees. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-time-cure/201702/the-elephant-in-the-room?page=2). Thirdly, you undermine your own position in referencing, not a mere "handful", but a small, yet potent, library of contemporary works by noted MD's and PhD's as "sensationalist"... whereas that is the scientific community weighing in. Obviously, a diagnosis of any kind cannot be asserted as fact. Equally obvious is that the issue is major and notable, and so should be referenced — no mention is a whitewash of history. The mere existence of a book such as The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 37 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President on the New York Times bestsellers list speaks volumes on the topic's notability. Lindenfall (talk) 20:59, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Lindenfall(1) Well, it does though. If someone says that Trump has dementia, paranoia, etc that is a diagnosis. (2) I'm not implying anything about Dr. Gartner. I'm pointing out the very real fact that this online petition has no verification. Anyone could have signed it. (3) It is, nevertheless, a fringe opinion. I'm not saying that nobody could advocate for it. I'm saying that it is not a mainstream idea that anyone can be reliably diagnosed without meeting them. Cosmic Sans (talk) 10:16, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Lindenfall There are professional organizations that would constitute the ‘scientific consensus’ here, and they’re not saying things like this, they’ve been inclined to Goldwater rule. The online petition was signed by over 70,000 eventually, with however much bots and trolls in the mix - but if it was anywhere near that many actual professionals, it would have been stated in the professional organization. And it wasn’t. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 12:01, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Cosmic Sans (and Markbassett): (1) Actually, anyone can say anything, but a diagnosis is a clinical term and an opinion is not a diagnosis. (2) I had deliberately used the numbers on the petition from before Gartner sent it to Schumer (because, after that, who knows), and as supported by Psychology Today. (3) I was never advocating for the petition's inclusion, but was making a point, for the sake of the existing argument, a point akin to my follow-up statement ("The mere existence of a book such as The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 37 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President on the New York Times bestsellers list speaks volumes on the topic's notability", above). You respond as if I had suggested adding it to the page. overlooking the point of its existence, and its prestigious author. Above all, please read me precisely in stating that a diagnosis is a moot point and is not at all germane to whether the topic should be included. Lindenfall (talk) 19:45, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Lindenfall, (1) your distinction between "diagnosis" and "opinion" seems artificial and is not found in reliable sources. The APA appears to make no such distinction. (2) An online petition that does not verify who signs it cannot be used as proof that consensus has been reached in the scientific community. (3) Okay, but nevertheless, no mainstream organization has endorsed this. I'm sure you can scrape up 37 flat earthers or anti-vaxxers if you tried. Cosmic Sans (talk) 21:42, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Cosmic Sans (1) Incorrect, since we are discussing medical diagnosis "with the medical context being implicit", as it always is in medical matters. However, why, I don't know, because, again, a diagnosis is neither attained nor the issue: including reference to widespread controversy over the mental health of the president is. (2) You miss the point, again. No one is suggesting that the petition be on the page; it's existence, central statement and esteemed author are, nonetheless, notable. (3) Not okay are gratuitous comments made in bad faith. Argument for the sake of argument is not productive. This discussion thread merely mocks the process here, and is so pointless, I'm done with it.Lindenfall (talk) 21:41, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Lindenfall I was the one who edited in the 40,000 sent to Schumer, sorry if that inclusion is contrary to your preference but was just trying to fix what seemed a miscopy from Health of Donald Trump. We don’t need to resolve here if the book is contrary to medical consensus on ethical practices and thus a fringe item where WP:FRINGE would apply ... the RFC topic doesn’t actually have that explicitly, it seems wanting to hold off that discussion. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:32, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Markbassett I literally do not know what you are talking about here: "I was the one who edited in the 40,000 sent to Schumer, sorry if that inclusion is contrary to your preference..." Edited in where? And, no, we don't need to resolve anything about the book, as no one is requesting its inclusion. The point was as written, that the existence of it, like the petition, due to its subject and authorship (and their defiance of custom to produce it), is, in fact, remarkable. Lindenfall (talk) 21:41, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Just meant that I changed it from the earlier 20 thousand into the 40 thousand from the Health article it came from. The presence of a book critical of whoever is or was in office seems normal to me. For example, Obama has ‘Worst President in History’ or ‘Treason’, Bill Clinton has ‘Sellout’, or ‘The secret life of Bill Clinton’, etcetera. That would be OTHERSTUFF though. Markbassett (talk) 23:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• In summary, it seems broad response with a large lot of discussions here and below, and about evenly divided Support and Oppose. (Which is a big change from the overwhelming ‘no’ in prior RFCs here.) A bit over a quarter of the Support side are Support only if it’s tightly controlled or limited, and a lot of the Oppose seem tied to it being disreputable as expressed by the Goldwater rule. The concerns of most seem to me in those two broad areas. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:58, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Discussion about the Goldwater Rule and "armchair diagnosis"

• I see a lot of people arguing that "we can't use armchair diagnosis, only someone who has actually examined the patient". That is the Goldwater Rule. What that leaves out is that someone who HAS examined the person would not be able to say anything either, because of the HIPAA privacy rule. By this logic, you can't say anything if you haven't examined him, and you can't say anything if you HAVE examined him, and basically all professionals are banned from ever saying anything, no matter their expertise or the source of their information. That makes no sense. The truth is that multiple in-depth interviews with a person are no longer considered the only way to evaluate their mental health. Their behavior and what they say can and does reveal a great deal to a trained professional. As for the argument that "memory" doesn't count as mental health - of course it does. Memory, or memory loss, is a prime symptom of Alzheimer's or other dementia. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:46, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

• • Actually MelanieN, you just presented an excellent argument for why we should oppose inclusion. There is a reason for HIPAA and the Goldwater Rule, and we, as editors of an encyclopedia, should not be judging or offering our own diagnoses in support of unethical ones simply because we agree with them. We should be using editorial discretion with a measure of human decency. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:02, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) That is kind of the thing. It was brought up above I hope that you will be consistent and nominate articles like Mental health of Jesus for deletion, must have been very unethical of all these scholars to examine Jesus. which is of course a silly argument. But that is a similar argument you are using. There is a difference if the subject is alive or not when making credible diagnoses and even then they are taken with a grain of salt since they are not reliable. You mention basically all professionals are banned from ever saying anything, no matter their expertise or the source of their information an answer to that is "yeah so what?". Better care should be taken about BLPs in general and this is a prime example of why. PackMecEng (talk) 00:05, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

• Note that neither of the two arguments presented above have any grounding in policy whatsoever, and that both implicitly acknowledge that the sources otherwise support inclusion. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED, and attacking clearly-reliable sources as unethical or trying to tug the heartstrings with an argument that inclusion would be a dreadful crime against human decency is bafflingly silly. If you have serious policy-based arguments to make, make them; but don't waste our time with this frippery. Read the sources. Weigh the sources. Decide if they justify inclusion or not. That's all we have to do. Both of you know this; you're experienced editors, so this sudden dive into irrelevant and unconvincing emotional appeals for something that is ultimately extremely straightforward is silly. You are asking us to ignore WP:WEIGHT, WP:RS, and WP:DUE based on an APA guideline that doesn't even apply to all medical professionals, let alone to Wikipedia. That's not policy-based, so if you have a better argument than the absurd "the NYT isn't a WP:RS because they violated the Goldwater Rule!", you'll have to present it. (If you honestly think that that makes the NYT not a WP:RS, WP:RSN is thataway. But you're wasting your time and you know it.) --Aquillion (talk) 07:42, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

• The arguments we presented are of course policy based and we have explained why they are. You know this so I do not know why you would make these statements. PackMecEng (talk) 15:07, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

• This is getting into WP:IDHT territory. If you have a policy-based argument, cite the policy. "But the Goldwater Rule!" isn't policy. "editorial discretion with a measure of human decency" isn't policy (in fact, in this context it directly violates WP:NOTCENSORED, since you're specifically asking that we censor otherwise-WP:DUE material based on a "think of the children!" argument.) "If it violates the Goldwater Rule, it's not reliable!" isn't anywhere in WP:RS that I can see - you don't get to disqualify otherwise-reliable sources simply because you don't like their coverage. If you have an actual policy-based argument, lay it out in detail; but no matter how strongly you feel about the Goldwater Rule, it's not part of our policies. If you feel that strongly about it, write angry letters to the numerous eminently reliable, high-quality WP:RSes that have covered this topic asking them to issue retractions; but it's a weak argument here, since it has no grounding in policy, and therefore should and will be rightfully ignored by whoever closes this RFC. --Aquillion (talk) 19:34, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

• The question regarding the Goldwater rule is not that it is policy, no one is claiming it is obviously. It comes down to, do fringe views have due weight to make these kind of claims. I call them fringe in this instance because without examination it is guessing which is not enough for medical diagnosis. Heck they would fail our own WP:MEDRS standards. The second part of that is their speculation is rather unethical. While noted below not everyone belongs to the AMA it is still the standard by and large for the industry. In the end we also do have editorial discretion on what we put into our articles. There is coverage of the topic but in the grand scheme of things it is not that much given how much other coverage this man has. I hope that clears up the arguments for you. PackMecEng (talk) 15:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

• The Goldwater rule is completely irrelevant. We follow WP:RS and WP:NPOV. There are numerous cases when experts evaluated mental health of politicians and historical figures based on their words, behavior and facts. If that was reliably published in multiple RS and the person was significant, that belongs to encyclopedia. My very best wishes (talk) 00:17, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

(Further to MelanieN's last comment) One also can't call the president a racist, no matter his verbiage, in Congress; there's a rule against it, we all recently learned, along with Nancy Pelosi. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/07/17/nancy-pelosi-was-rebuked-calling-trumps-tweets-racist-she-can-thank-thomas-jefferson-brits/?utm_term=.e891b2c9c838) Nonetheless, any publication can report the full story of how that came to be, or how it came to be in the news of the day. It only stands to reason that Wikipedia can, and should, include any widespread controversy, including the one over his mental health, diagnoses notwithstanding.

Diagnoses is beside the point of inclusion. Despite not requiring a diagnosis to include the controversy, might I also draw attention to this List of mentally ill monarchs, which has garnered no opponents for its many armchair diagnoses? Perhaps because they (too), are based on the opinions of scholars regarding the history of each individual's words and deeds. Lindenfall (talk) 00:23, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

• Whatever rules might exist in US Congress, they are irrelevant to our content policies, just as the Goldwater rule. We say what reliable sources say on the subject. Yes, if many scholars say something regarding an individual, we just say the same. This is reference work. My very best wishes (talk) 00:34, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

• Still has bad implications allowing, what is at best educated guesses about a BLP. As you know BLP issues and NPOV is not just welp sources talk about it so it must go in. PackMecEng (talk) 01:11, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I am just saying that something might be included about it, maybe to another page. There are sources [17],[18],[19],[20]. Unfortunately, this is very real possibility. My very best wishes (talk) 02:42, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

This might be off topic, but do you honestly believe he will end life on the planet as we know it? PackMecEng (talk) 15:09, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Thinking as a researcher, yes, I am sure Doomsday Clock shows the time correctly, and there are no doubts USA will play a role. Does it mean "ending life on the planet as we know it"? Not necessarily. In particular, the effects of nuclear winter are overstated. Read Nuclear War Survival Skills and buy dosimeter. This is my advice. On the other hand, "ending life on the planet as we know it" is inevitable, even without the nuclear war. Thinking in terms of the higher power, I am sure the humanity will survive. My very best wishes (talk) 15:31, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Belief is subjective..nobody is sure of anything..this is relevant..it should be in article 2600:1702:2340:9470:F8DE:D64D:3F1F:3537 (talk) 18:15, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

• The Goldwater Rule is unambiguously not a policy-based argument to exclude something, and I ask the closing admin to disregard any opinions in the RFC that rely on it exclusively. We base inclusion on WP:DUE weight among reliable sources; if they consider a topic to be relevant, then we do as well. Likewise, the argument of "if a professional is ignoring the Goldwater Rule, are they really a reliable source?" is similarly frivolous to the point of absurdity - first, the Goldwater Rule doesn't apply to all professionals (there are many from different countries, or different organizations, or who have expertise in other ways.) Second, we don't, for the most part, cite professionals directly, but the reliable sources that cover them. It is inappropriate and, again, not based in policy to second-guess those secondary sources by saying "well, should they have really covered it?" That's not our call to make, and arguments grounded in trying to second-guess the sources like that should likewise be disregarded as not grounded in policy. We reflect the sources, which have unambiguously covered this topic at length. I strongly urge anyone who has relied on it in their opinions above to reconsider; they weaken their own arguments by relying on criticizing the sources in this way. (Especially since an implicit part of shifting that argument is, inevitably, an acknowledgement that the sources do support inclusion unless some argument can be made to discredit them.) --Aquillion (talk) 07:32, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

  The sources such as Bandy's Lee's book and related material have all the appearances of hyper-partisan hatchet pieces. Since such hyper-partisan opinions are unlikely to be presented by reputable neutral psychiatrists, those that would do such a thing are doing so only from an unscientific manner of diagnostic care, and they lack the thorough vetting and support of the primary accrediting entity of that profession. The fact that that entity says "we do not do this" is the exact reason Lee spends a fair amount of time in her opening dialogue of her book discrediting the very entity that sets Hippocratic standards for her profession, a standard she overtly abrogates to present a less than likely scenario that Trump is a "national emergency" a "threat to the United States and global security", etc. Such hyperbolic sensationalism is definitively fringe. The Foreward in Lee's book is written by Jeffrey Sachs, who opens with telling us Trump is dangerous (though he himself is NOT a psychiatrist, he's a Keynesian economist) and then he too says that the APA's guidelines on presenting armchair diagnostics should be ignored and also discredits this primary accrediting entity, as grounds and justification to ignore their credo cause, trump is "dangerous".--MONGO (talk) 14:45, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

  The RFC probably should have included a list of sources at the top, because there are a lot of them and many of them are plainly not "partisan hatchet pieces." Just as an example, here's a few: NYT, Again, Vanity Fair, Again, Independent, WaPo, New Yorker, IBT, US News and World Report. These aren't sources that can reasonably be disregarded. Your objections to eg. Lee would make sense if we were relying on citing them directly, but once they're covered by secondary sources that decision is mostly out of our hands - second-guessing a source by saying "they shouldn't cover this" (or, worse, "covering this axiomatically makes this a partisan hit piece") is going outside of WP:RS. Worse, the latter argument basically says that the topic must be excluded, always and forever, no matter what the sources say, because you'll axiomatically categorize any source covering it as a partisan hit piece; the argument amounts to saying "I know what the sources should be saying here, so any source that says otherwise is unreliable!" It should be obvious why that argument is frivolous. It's also WP:FALSEBALANCE - our rules aren't about ensuring that the coverage subjects get from reliable sources is "fair and balanced" in that sense, they're about ensuring that we cover what the sources actually say, evaluating that coverage in a neutral way. Suggesting that we should ignore it because "the sources are wrong to cover these people" is a WP:NPOV violation in that you're effectively arguing we should replace the coverage of reliable sources with your own personal preferences and outlook on the situation. --Aquillion (talk) 19:28, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

• The Goldwater rule puts ‘armchair diagnosis’ as unethical and unprofessional... The professional organizations commonly form the scientific consensus here, and thus such armchair diagnosis is WP:FRINGE, not WP:MAINSTREAM. Whether we mention such or not, WP Policy says we should not portray such as more notable or accepted than it is, in particular portraying it as mental health professionals, and WP:ONEWAY would possibly say to not mention it at all. Frankly, mentioning it would seem to require including a lot more saying the response and clarifying it as a fringe group or sensational tabloidy book and just another poor use of this BLP space for yet another snipe included. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 12:17, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
• The Goldwater rule has no relevance. Mental health professionals must decide whether reporting their opinions on Trump violates the rule and news media and other reliable sources must determine whether it should affect their reporting of these findings. All that Wikipedia editors should consider is what has been reported in reliable sources. It is original research to evaluate the truth and ethics of the statements. TFD (talk) 16:25, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

  The argument that if its covered in RS's it is fair game for inclusion is a valid one within policy. However, we are the editors here and not beholden to parrot every storyline about what some fear mongering anti-Trumpians "think", regardless of their credentials. Should this nonsense be placed in the article, proper rebuttal of this sort of armchair hyper-partisan fear mongering that the President is a "danger to the Untied States and global security" needs to be properly counterbalanced. "Why experts are split over Trump’s mental health"[21], "Before diagnosing Trump as mentally ill, let’s ask what that actually means"[22], and an opinion piece by another well credentialed member of the APA, but all we have is opinions as well from the fear mongerers like Bandy Lee here "An Eminent Psychiatrist Demurs on Trump’s Mental State"[23] where it is stated, "Most amateur diagnosticians have mislabeled President Trump with the diagnosis of narcissistic personality disorder. I wrote the criteria that define this disorder, and Mr. Trump doesn’t meet them. He may be a world-class narcissist, but this doesn’t make him mentally ill, because he does not suffer from the distress and impairment required to diagnose mental disorder."--MONGO (talk) 16:57, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

  The question is not whether reliable sources report on this but rather whether it should be accorded substantial weight in the article. You can find many references to fringe theories like Flat Earth or Anti-Vaxx in reliable sources. But they represent a fringe theory and should not be accorded much weight at all. Similarly, the idea that an armchair diagnosis has validity is a fringe theory that is not endorsed by any major psychological/psychiatric organization. These WP:DUE/WP:FRINGE concerns are only amplified by WP:BLP problems. Should a fringe theory be advanced in an biography of a living person? Absolutely not. Cosmic Sans (talk) 21:38, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

• • • The only fringe theory I see is the fringe theory advanced by you here that the mainstream, extensive reporting on Trump's personality in high-quality reliable sources, based on extensive commentary by reputable experts, is a "fringe theory". --Tataral (talk) 22:37, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Clarification regarding Goldwater rule

It's come to my attention that some editors have been making the claim that Wikipedia isn't bound by the guidelines of the American Psychiatric Association. While that is obviously true, it is not the point of the Goldwater rule. The aim is to delegitimise such diagnosis. We should make sure that we are reporting a consensus view, and not a fringe or unsupported view, similar to views on climate change. ADDED: This rule may be important in how we address the mental health claims, but is by no means an objection to either publishing or assessing certain claims. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:05, 19 July 2019 (UTC) Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:49, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

What does climate change have to do with this? 2600:1702:2340:9470:D0BE:E5E0:F5FB:22FF (talk) 02:50, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

The GW does not "delegitimise" people's comments at all, or make them "fringe". Not all of the many people who have commented on his mental status are bound by the Goldwater Rule, and some of those that are members of organizations that do have that guideline said they felt the "Duty to warn" (another ethical and legal rule for such professionals) took precedence. As for "consensus", many thousands of professionals have expressed alarm about his mental status. I am not aware of any comparably large movement among mental health professionals to balance that, by stating that in their opinion Trump has no serious mental health issues. Are you? -- MelanieN (talk) 03:18, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Duty to warn of course refers to clients who are under the care of a clinician and the patient then discloses they are or otherwise present as a risk to themselves or others. It does not, to my knowledge, cover armchair diagnoses of people not under the care of a clinician making the claim.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 03:57, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

As reported by RS, a significant number of MH professionals interpret duty to warn differently than you do, and I daresay they are more qualified than you or I to interpret it. In any case such arguments are outside our purview as Wikipedia editors, as has been articulated multiple times in this RfC. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:02, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Please provide a single WP:MEDRS reliable source of a professional body or legal text which defines duty to warn that way. And actually, duty to warn is a legal thing so it is lawyers and courts that define it, so individual mental health experts are not the best people to “reinterpret” what the legal profession working with professional mental health bodies have defined for civil negligence cases and professional care of patients, etc.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 05:14, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Sort of. It depends on the nature of the action: in many cases of professional negligence brought under common law principles (and this applies to all contemporary U.S. jurisdictions), the standard of care is expressly linked to a professional standard adopted by the majority of similarly situated professionals. But a duty to warn case is likely to be brought under a general, rather than professional, negligence claim, in which the plaintiff will have the burden of establishing that a duty existed and that it was breached (two elements of the prima facie case under traditional negligence law). Some states have statutory standards as well, and those are likely to be created with consultation between the legislative committee that first promulgated them and a professional advisory body of one sort or another. Anyway, this is irrelevant. There's exactly zero professional liability for psychologists failing to warn of such a generalized perceived dangers. When such experts speak about their "duty to warn", they are speaking in terms of their own moral compass, not legal liability. Snow ^{let's rap} 05:40, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree, but all of this just underscores how much of a fruitless and ill-advised it is to undertake an effort to put ourselves in the place as some sort of self-appointed ethical watchdog over the psychiatric profession. I can't imagine anything more WP:OR or irrelevant to a content determination under our polices. And anyway Onetwothreeip's original point is a complete misapprehension of how the Goldwater Rule operates. It does not "delegitimize" any conclusions reached that were made in breach of the rule--that's complete fiction that has no basis in the wording of the rule or the professional complications that arise out of it. The rule arose as a means to try to keep the image of the profession, not because anyone really believed that it was completely impossible to diagnose someone short of an in-person interview. I very much assure you that if you show me five videos of individuals engaging in conversation, and one of them is suffering from cognitive impairment as the result of recent transient ischemia, I can almost certainly tell you which person it is, even if there is no motor/speech production impairment involved. The analysis is even more one-sided when assessing psychological conditions not arising out of neurological impairment (that is, more "purely" psychological issues): there is way more material out there to examine with regard to Trump than the average psychiatrist gets with regard to their average patient--it amounts far more than appropriate corpus from which to derive a diagnosis that is at least as reliable as one based on one (or even a handful) of in-person interviews.

So, again, the Goldwater Rule didn't arise because psychiatrists believed long-distance diagnosis was impossible or even particularly more difficult: it arose because soem psychiatrists believed it was unethical to engage in the practice of medical diagnosis without the consent of the person being diagnozed, and because the Goldwater case caused a lot of political blow back and bad PR for the profession. It was a pragmatic decision made for the welfare and status of the profession, not out of a belief that remote diagnosis was impossible. But absolutely none of that should matter, or need to be said here, because this entire line of discussion is just us engaging in WP:OR about what the members of the profession are capable of an how they assess their evidence and professional liabilities. While I have nothign but confidence in everything I have explained above, this is no more appropriate here than if we were comparing the statements of an RS news article about crime statistics against our own personal experience: it is clearly, manifestly, directly against how we are meant to be judging the appropriateness of content on the basis of WP:WEIGHT.

Anyway MelanieN's other points are more relevant: only a small fraction of experts who might comment on Trump's mental health are members of the APA and bound by the Goldwater Rule. Look, let's break this down:

1) Only a portion of the many types of experts who might have expertise to comment on someone's mental health are going to be psychiatrists. Let's be incredibly generous here and say that figure is 50% (it's actually not even nearly that large, but let's just start there). So we're at 50%

2) Only a small fraction of psychiatrists in the world are licensed in the U.S.--let's say 10% (again, it's much smaller than that, but let's be generous). 10% of 50% is 5%.

3) Among licensed American psychiatrists, less than 44% are members of the APA. (Yeah, that's right, less than half). 44% of 5% is 2.2%. In other words, of all the possible experts in the world who might qualified to speak as to someone's mental health in some professional or researcher capacity, well less than 2.2% are bound by the Goldwater Rule (and in reality its significantly less than even that). Violating it has zero impact on the reliability of the conclusion the expert arrives at, for purposes of our policies.

So...yeah, it's really beyond time to drop this line of reasoning: Aquillion already put it succinctly above--anyone pushing this as a editorially significant factor is merely torpedoing any credability in the rest of their argument. It doesn't hold up on any level, either as a factual matter or with regard to how our policies dictate we should evaluate sources. Snow ^{let's rap} 05:23, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

• There's a difference between psychiatry and psychology. Here's an article written by psychologists at Emory U, U of Georgia, and Purdue U (also available as PDF): Although the Goldwater Rule prohibits psychiatrists from offering diagnostic opinions on individuals they have never examined, no comparable rule exists for psychologists. ...there are select cases in which psychological scientists with suitable expertise may harbor a “duty to inform,” allowing them to offer informed opinions concerning public figures’ mental health with appropriate caveats. ... First, we propose that although psychologists should typically refrain from offering diagnoses of public figures, they should be able to do so when these individuals hold positions of substantial power over others, as is the case for most high-profile politicians. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 05:32, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, and they put the duty to inform in speech marks to emphasise that such experts are expanding or changing or otherwise going beyond the accepted legal and professional meaning of duty to inform. Basically the author is describing the psyche and motives of many psychologists for publicly giving opinion on Trump.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 05:39, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

None of which matters, because those experts are under no duty to obey the Goldwater Rule regardless of whether they also have a competing duty to warn. They can ignore the Goldwater Rule just because they think it nonsense and it has zero per se impact on their authority as experts. It just doesn't apply to them. And for the record, I agree with you that this "duty to warn" discussion is a red herring. But it's a half ounce red herring being swallowed up by the two-ton Red Herring that is the suggestion that the Goldwater Rule prevents us from using the sources here. There are many reasonable arguments for why we might not want to go down the avenue of discussing Trump's mental health. The Goldwater Rule isn't one of them--not in this universe, anyway. Snow ^{let's rap} 05:50, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Something I've pointed out repeatedly when the "Goldwater fallacy" has been brought up is that, in addition to the fact that it isn't even relevant to all US-based experts who may have something to say about the issue, it's not relevant to anyone outside the US at all, as an American association cannot force their views upon the rest of the world. Many experts from outside the US have commented on Trump's personality and mental health too, and some have even commented on why it is appropriate and ethical to make such assessments. --Tataral (talk) 17:15, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

MelanieN and others, I am not saying that any particular mental health assessment of Donald Trump is fringe, but we can't accept a single person's assessment and present it as factual or reliable. That would be comparable to accepting fringe views based on one scientist's view of climate change or the September 11 attacks. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:10, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

We do have armchair Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and petitions with armchair professionals signing them, which is very similar to what is being proposed for this article except since D. Trump has not been formally assessed armchair fringe opinion is being proposed to be given undue weight because it cannot be opposed by a proper assessment.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 08:44, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Please stop the strawmanning. This RfC proposes exactly nothing specific for this article. That petition is far from the only thing that will be on the table in follow-on discussion if this RfC passes, and I for one have opposed mention of it precisely because of the absence of controls on it. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:54, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Citing the Goldwater rule as an objection is classic synthesis. It requires us to assess opinions of experts in reliable sources based on standards of a professional body. Not only that, but we have to interpret those standards and assess whether there are exceptions based on another standard. There is no basis in policy or guidelines to do this. The justification for using it is that it shows that the opinion Trump has NCD is fringe and lacks weight. But we don't need the Goldwater rule to make that determination. We determine that in every article without having to assess the methodology used by writers of reliable sources. We do that by assessing the degree of their acceptance in the body of literature. TFD (talk) 17:17, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

The attempt to marginalise the APA is misguided. The number of psychiatrists who are members of the association are not the same as the people influenced by it. The APA's DSM-5 is used worldwide, including in Australia. The Royal College of Psychiatrists in the UK follow a similar rule to the Goldwater Rule.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:29, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Literaturegeek, replying to your comment of 22:58, 21 July. By "experts" I wasn't referring to a handful of experts who hold an opinion different from most experts. No one would say, according to experts, 9/11 was a false flag operation. TFD (talk) 01:02, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Evaluating a patient

You all seem to not know much about psychology. I was in practice for years, and here are some things you need to know; it takes hours to evaluate an adult patient for serious mental illness, and sometimes even more then one visit. That said, they have to actually visit for you to even do an evaluation. I've seen many patients who acted out in public, showing signs of certain illnesses, yet when their parents or friends brought them in, they were completely fine. They had just acted foolish in public, but there was nothing to worry about, other than their immaturity. What you see on the outside does not necessarily concur with what is on the inside. Although Trump may act like he has certain problems, it is foolish to try and pin them to certain illnesses without actually examining him in person. 98.164.149.85 (talk) 20:29, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Please don't lump us together as "you all", since many fellow editors are here seeking to have the controversy over Trump's mental health included as exactly that, being not in the least inclined to include any diagnoses, being as none are fully informed by treating Trump. Us all sticking to the point of there being widespread controversy, and whether mention should be included, would preclude a lot of haranguing.

"I've seen many patients who acted out in public, showing signs of certain illnesses, yet when their parents or friends brought them in, they were completely fine. They had just acted foolish in public, but there was nothing to worry about, other than their immaturity" presents quite a kettle of fish, and is highly subjective, but, being immaterial to this discussion, I'll not address it, and cross me weary fingers in the hope that this discussion does not further devolve with it.Lindenfall (talk) 22:01, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

No offence but we have no idea whether or not you are a psychiatrist...how on earth can you prove the person isn`t acting out in the office by attempting to appear normal ? 2600:1702:2340:9470:DD11:33A3:B552:F2E (talk) 22:11, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

He or she never said he or she was a psychiatrist.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:15, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

He implied it..he claims to have seen many patients...what else can that imply ? 2600:1702:2340:9470:1D6F:5AAA:65B:C781 (talk) 02:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Well there is such a thing as a practicing psychologist. Unlike psychiatrists, they are not medical doctors and thus cannot provide anything that constitutes medical treatment, but some states allow them to register to provide limited forms of personal therapy--these professionals may at times refer to their clientele as patients. However our IP actually does now claim to be a psychiatrist in the !votes above now. Considering this IP starts out saying "You people do not know how psychology works!" and then immediately starts to describe the work of a therapist, and now identifies as a psychiatrist above, combined with their fairly lay-speech peppered description of the work, I'm feeling the chances of them genuinely being a psychiatrist are extremely low. But again, it doesn't matter: what they are peddling here is WP:Original research whether they are Robert Spitzer or Joe Internet. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:07, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I have serious doubts about the IP's claims, but that's not the real issue with the comment: this is completely irrelevant WP:original research that has absolutely no bearing on how we evaluate a source or establish WP:WEIGHT from among multiple sources. This entire subthread should probably be deleted or at least hatted: it has no bearing on any policy or particular piece of content. Not that this is surprising: the IP (legitimately a practicing psychologist or not) may not know better than that our WP:Talk pagess are WP:NOTAFORUM to discuss these issues at length, and what else are they supposed to think but that such OR is appropriate here, after a platform has already been erected on any even larger piece of WP:original research; namely the argument that because a tiny portion of psychological experts are members of an organization that has the Goldwater Rule, we are bound to omit any mention of any statement that we (in our idiosyncratic impression as editors on Wikipedia) decide violates it--even if the given expert isn't one of the (very small number of) experts who are members of the APA! When that argument, clearly a non-starter under our policies (and well beyond our legitimate remit as editors on this project), is being seriously advanced to try to block any mention of this topic (which I personally think is fertile ground for debate, but just not on -this- rationale), its no wonder we have IPs dropping in claiming to be expertss. Of course they think such blatant original research is meaningful here, given the indications they have seen in the discussion above... Snow ^{let's rap} 01:13, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I think that most editors are aware that diagnostics requires an evaluation by a professional who has examined the patient. The same is true for physical illnesses, which is why people visit doctors and Wikipedia acknowledges this by having the Identifying reliable sources (medicine) guideline. The problem is that we cannot second guess reliable sources per Synthesis of published material. We can't say that a book including contributions from medical experts and published by Yale University is wrong because it used the wrong methodology. That discussion is supposed to take place among experts and we are supposed to ensure that this article provides the same weight to the issue that news media does and explain the degree of acceptance or rejection of the diagnosis among the professional community of mental health experts. I think they have provided little credence to it for the reasons you mentioned, and therefore it deserves little or no mention. At present I have not seen sufficient coverage for inclusion. But as a psychologist, you could help in telling us what the community says about this specific case, and provide sources. TFD (talk) 00:56, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

This process seems to take the decision-making away from experts and give it to the ignorant.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:35, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. Let's reframe the issue to match how our policies define the matter: it's not our place to WP:synthesize conclusions about what we think the experts will think about their fellow experts, based on what we know (or with regard to many !votes here, what people think they know) about the profession. The experts can speak for themselves, through publication, interview or public statement, and we utilize those statements (or not) in accordance with our WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:NPOV/WP:WEIGHT policies. If other experts feel inclined to distance themselves from those statements, or to vet, analyze, comment upon, or reject them, or to question the methodology (or the ethics) of the original expert, they can do so as well--individually or as professional bodies--and we can report those statements (as long as they too meet RS standards) as well--or factor them into the weight analysis in other respects.

What we cannot do, under our policies, is take a professional standard, put ourselves in the shoes of a professional body as if we are similarly positioned expert members of those bodies who formulate and apply that standard, and decide on their behalf that we know what they would think of the statement, based on our own plain reading of a standard. That is clearly, unambiguously, manifestly, beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt, textbook WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. THAT would be the uninformed trying to step into the role of experts, as you put it. Or more to the point for our purposes on this project, into the role of reliable sources. Beyond that, as has been repeated ad nauseum, only a small fraction of psychological experts work as professionals subject to this rule--and only where they elect to be members of the APA, which represents less than 44% of practitioners in the U.S. (which, it apparently it needs to be repeated here, is just one of many nations with experts in the psychological, psychiatric, and cognitive sciences...). Snow ^{let's rap} 03:14, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

@Jack Upland:, quite the opposite. We allow experts to determine how to interpret their own rules and procedures and report their conclusions instead of editors' conclusions. Some editors have mentioned the Goldwater rule and others about warning about imminent dangers and suggest we read through psychology texts to determine which one applies, and ignore what experts say about it. TFD (talk) 04:50, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

You do realise that your argument is the same one used by supporters of these armchair experts: Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. These experts commenting on Trump have no way of knowing how D. Trump is outside the political, legal and business world as they have not asked him pertinent questions, interviewed family members etc. Much like the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth who never examine the raw evidence, interviewed relevant witnesses etc. The narcissistic behaviour could be his personality or it could be a winning tactic he has learnt through his life experiences, he needs a proper assessment for that. Ben Carson says he is a completely different person off camera.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

It's clear that the prestigious APA and the Royal College of Psychiatrists in the UK and common knowledge say that psychiatrists and psychologists need to examine the patient before making a diagnosis. So why, why, why rely on the opinions of practitioners who have never examined Trump??? This might be interesting but it is not encyclopedic. To say that the few practitioners who have broke ranks and commented on Trump are the "experts" is supremely illogical. The Goldwater rule is respected by the majority worldwide. A small minority doesn't become a majority because it is noisy.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:43, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

The argument you are advancing there is textbook, unambiguous WP:original research. What your argument boils down to is this: "I have a large number of experts advancing an opinion in WP:Reliable sources that I personally find dubious, but rather than treat those as a product of WP:WEIGHT and try to keep these opinions within perspective with a careful approach to the content, I am going to try to block their entry into the article entirely, by taking a professional standard I am in no remote way trained or qualified to understand the operation or nuances of and I will apply that rule myself (however I wish, as an uninformed layperson filtering this rule through my own idiosyncratic lens) to arrive at a conclusion that the source is very bad--even though I am operating here as Wikipedia editor (not a disagreeing expert or member of professional body) and not only does Wikipedia policy not validate this kind of 'put myself in the place of the expert' reasoning, but in fact expressly forbids it as one of the fundamental principles of neutral editing based on reliable sources and not the personal conjecture of our editors."

And I'm sorry, but we are just not allowed to do that on this project, no matter how passionately we feel about an expert's opinion or how they arrived at it. Even those of us who actually do have a formal background in medicine or the cognitive and psychological sciences are not allowed to do that when we are operating as editors here. If another expert or other reliable source criticizes the original expert's opinion, by all means, we can use that in the WP:WEIGHT analysis. But what cannot do is advance our personal perspectives/judgments on the expert opinion (or their methodology) as if our own opinion themselves have weight, because our personal opinions as editors have this much weight precisely in a content determination: 0.00000%. The approach pushed for here is not just borderline original research, is paradigmatic original research. Indeed, in all my years on the project I have scarcely ever seen such a sustained, inappropriate push for such a blatantly OR argument. I don't think everyone supporting it is doing so just out of bias (I think legitimate concerns do underpin some of this), but anyone advancing this argument has well lost track of their appropriate role as editors here, which is not to place themselves in the roles of the RS/experts.

I very seriously hope that (for the sake of the point being explicit) the closer of this discussion not only finds for a consensus to some discussion of the topic here, per WP:WEIGHT, but also makes express mention of WP:PNSD and points out that they had to disregard a large number of !votes here that just could not be resolved to broader community consensus as established in our basic editorial policies, because so many opposes chose to embrace this (clearly unsupportable) notion that there is community consensus for the editors on this project applying outside professional tests in the place of our WP:V and WP:RS policies. The most troubling consequence of all of this is that there are many very legitimate policy reasons for being concerned about opening the door on this topic. But rather than discussing how we will keep the content policy consistent and representing limited WP:DUE weight, the goal posts have instead been changed to this hail mary/all-or-nothing tactic, that (having no basis in policy/community consensus) will not hold for long and will only lead to more polarized discussion once it crumbles away and the work on the actual content has to begin. I fear the ultimate content will suffer as a consequence--and probably in a way that the present "oppose" !votes will least want.

Also, as regards "The Goldwater rule is respected by the majority worldwide. A small minority doesn't become a majority because it is noisy." That is simply factually incorrect--and is, if I am to put it bluntly, one of the reasons I know you are dilettante speculating/making grand statements about professional standards you aren't truly familiar with. Even if we confine ourselves to American practitioners and limit our inquiry to physicians and psychiatrists (which represent only a subset of experts who may have an opinion as to subject matter), then we can easily determine how many of them are subject to the Goldwater Rule and just how bound they are by it. First, nobody is professionally bound to it: it is not a rule which you will lose your license. Rather, it is merely a rule adopted by two at will professional organizations that psychiatrists may join, if they wish: the APA and the AMA. And the may part is important, because only 25% of currently practicing physicians are members of the AMA and 43% of all practicing psychiatrists join the APA. You may recognize those figures as much smaller than the "majority worldwide" that you (falsely) assert, because the figures of psychiatrists bound to the standard outside the U.S. are even smaller--and, as has been stated at length here previously, psychiatrists represent just one of several types of expert who may be qualified to speak as to a person's cognitive abilities or mental health, many of whom are in no way bound to the standard of the Goldwater Rule to begin with.

Of course, none of the last paragraph should even need to be raised into the discussion, because even if it were the case that 100% of psychiatrists worldwide were members of the APA, it would still be WP:original research for editors on this project to apply the standard on their behalf. But the blatant misinformation about the exact proportions of professionals operating under the rule that has been advanced here deserves correction, regardless. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:00, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I think that misses the point. The question isn't how many psychiatrists are members of the APA or are bound by the Goldwater Rule. The point is that prestigious bodies like the APA and the Royal College of Psychiatrists in the UK believe that psychiatric diagnosis without examining the patient is worthless. So should we put worthless speculation in the article?--Jack Upland (talk) 00:21, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: - the link you provided aptly demonstrated "damned if I do, damned if I don't". So public 'diagnoses' are according to Simon Wessely, head of the Royal College of Psychiatrists in the UK, usually also facile and stating the obvious, unless it’s based on real, serious, inside information; in which case you should and will be struck off before nightfall. And deserve to be." Wessley goes on to argue When someone is dead, I think it’s different ... historians are still better at it, though. So Wessley is acknowledging historians have more knowledge about mental health issues than psychiatrists like whether JFK’s steroid intake influenced his judgment in the Bay of Pigs. starship.paint (talk) 03:20, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

So let's wait for the historians.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:31, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. We shall just have to wait about 5-10 years after Trump leaves office (either in Jan. 2021 or 2025) to even begin to make real, truly unbiased statements. (i.e. That's how long I think we will have to wait until the dust surrounding Trump finally settles). Mgasparin (talk) 02:56, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

It's not our place to play expert on this project and decide what is "worthless speculation" among the sources. Again, even those of us who have credentials in a relevant field are not allowed to do that here. All a source has to do is meet our WP:RS standards; it does not have to pass through a gauntlet of satisfying the idiosyncratic judgment of every editor with a personal opinion on the their methodology. Seriously, this is Wikipedia 101--there's not even a remote question about whether our policies, as a codification of community consensus, allow for us to block content just because we have qualms about how the expert came to their conclusions, or because we have seen other experts approach the issue differently: our most fundamental and basic policies on the topic plainly, expressly, and beyond a shadow of a doubt prohibit us from adopting the approach you suggest. Snow ^{let's rap} 05:51, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

The million dollar question is whether any large organization, on par with the APA, thinks that "armchair diagnoses" are valid and reliable? The closest I've ever seen is something to the effect of "we won't censor our members" but that's far from an endorsement. The reality is, the consensus among the major associations seems to be that you shouldn't do this. There are, as far as I know, no major association that's sticking up for it. That's all you should need to know to call this a fringe theory. Cosmic Sans (talk) 18:07, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's still WP:original research and still not allowed here. What you are proposing is that we do our own independent survey of what experts think about this methodology (either as individuals or as associations), reach our own conclusions about that methodology from that survey and then apply it on our own to a WP:reliable source to decide whether we think said source conforms to how we would approach the situation. It just doesn't get more blatantly or paradigmatically OR than that, and that's just not allowed under this project's policies. Snow ^{let's rap} 05:51, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and just for a small, small sampling of possible contexts in which different experts can quite legitimately discuss the mental conditions of others without having examined them: any number of empiricists working in scholarship ranging from a bevy of scientific and legal fields when they write technical works discussing not just numerous branches of clinical psychology, but nuerophysiology, medicine, criminal pathology, legal theory, and far too many subtopics within those fields to accommodate here. How about a true crime author who happens to have a background in criminology who provides his own subjective on a serial killer that he helped profile and track? You know, even psychologists are sometimes not just permitted but requested to provide an opinion on the behaviour of someone who has refused to participate in psychological interviews beyond what is required of them by law--and not just in the popular media: courtrooms are another example where this can happen.

But yes, in the news media too, and it's not our job to embrace WP:SYNTH and step in as filters, if enough of them do so: we need to at least cover the controversy once we hit a certain threshold of coverage--anyone who doesn't recognize why that's a requirement needs to reacquaint (or perhaps just acquaint) themselves with our WP:NPOV policy, particularly WP:WEIGHT. And of course WP:OR, as discussed extensively above. But weight is where I would put the focus: the discussion we should be having here, under Wikipedia's policies, is whether, in the sea of sources on Trump, we have enough here to justify mentioning this strain of commentary about the most powerful man on planet Earth; I think the answer may be yes, but we should definitely be having that conversation right now. And even if we decide that its worth including, we need to at least hammer out a version that is brief, neutral, and expressly WP:ATTRIBUTEd.

But we can't have those necessary discussions about why this maybe needs to stay out for now, or how we dramatically limit its expression and deny it any semblance of being in Wikipedia's voice if it does come in--not while this much energy is being wasted containing the mother of all WP:Original research decisions above that is the proposal that we judge the methodology of otherwise WP:Reliable sources (primary and secondary) and do specifically by applying our own amateur understanding of what is legitimate practice. The editors on this page are largely not qualified to do that and even if they were, our policies on this page would prevent them from doing so and advancing that argument for editorial purposes here. The WP:OR analysis doesn't just fade like mist if one believes they, having examined the situation, are really, really certain they understand the field and have gotten things right with their personal analysis of the facts. In fact, the policy exists specifically to emphasize that this is the antithesis of how our WP:V and WP:WEIGHT policies are meant to operate. To put it in terms of a favourite idiom from my present-day abode: that dog won't hunt. So let's shift attention to those that will, under policy. I share the concerns about whether this content is necessary and appropriate at this time, but the "concerned" !vote is only being split by the argument advanced above, since many of us who share your concerns in the broader sense cannot follow you down that path that so clearly runs against the most basic and longstanding of policies and community consensus. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:35, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, that appears to be a snow job. It's told us absolutely nothing, except that you're living in an interesting place.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:00, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Or it's a breakdown of the numerous major policies (representing some of our most basic editorial principles) which expressly and directly prohibit the course of action you are advocating for above. We do not insert ourselves into the roll of RS. If you want to oppose the article discussing the topic, predicate it in the WP:WEIGHT of actual sources or another established editorial argument consistent with community consensus, not wandering WP:OR by way of WP:SYNTHESIS based on amateur understanding of professional standards which do not, in any event, hold relevance in how we are meant to be deciding this editorial matter under this project's policies... Snow ^{let's rap} 20:12, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Jack Upland You could simply cite RS in the field as this is frowned on, or RS reviewers of the book. It’s not hard to find those who sniff at their mentions of Hitler, or that critique claims how much need there is of a ‘duty to warn’ about public acts which NY Times covers many days and that warnings are private not done in book form for big $$$. Alan Stone in Lawfare, or Allen Frances in wsj.com for example. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:19, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Markbassett, I'm not clear what you're responding to.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:31, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Jack Upland I’m suggesting that to this long Snow bit about OR you could simply find and cite the views of RS third party experts. I think ‘Dangerous Case’ was not well regarded by the APA or similar, nor book reviews, and that pointing to their remarks instead of your own is an option. It seems a clever bundling of prior Opinion pieces into a book form that made it a best seller, in a pro/anti Trump genre that seems ridiculously profitable. But not professionally well-respected by the field or book reviewers. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:52, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Footnote

Markbassett: Since the RfC is still ongoing, should you be adding comment in footnotes? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 06:19, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: That was a self-revert of his removal of the footnote, which has been in the paragraph for a couple of weeks. I don't think the RfC has much to do with it, since it isn't about specific content, but the footnote is the result of at least some discussion and shouldn't be removed as a bold edit. Anyway we're back to status quo ante on that and we're good in my opinion. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:38, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Space4Time3Continuum2x - Yes I touched a late-arriving footnote, wound up no change in the end. And yes, I think editing could go on in the mental health para during the current RFC and a bit has. Although any work there is obviously at some risk of being wasted if the rfc then affects the work. It would seem treading on the rfc to hold it all fixed or to delete it all while the question is under discussion, but tweaks in the section seem fine so if you want to edit something small I’d say go ahead. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:32, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

p.s. I got back and made a tweak there, for what it’s worth. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:48, 8 August 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.

Epstein

FYI, I removed a recently-added paragraph about Jeffrey Epstein, which was nothing but recentist "guilt by association" material, unfit for this BLP. — JFG ^talk 22:44, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Why would you protect someone like this? 2600:1702:2340:9470:D515:E49A:D804:2E3B (talk) 03:27, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

How about you read WP:RECENTISM and learn why we try not to write too much about controversies while they are occurring. We are not protecting Epstein, we are just trying to write a good article. Mgasparin (talk) 06:34, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

It is always slanted..lose the attitude 2600:1702:2340:9470:C534:9D16:ED09:64C9 (talk) 18:35, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

It's like you read my mind, JFG. I've been thinking about that paragraph for a couple days. It does seem inappropriate. Cosmic Sans (talk) 19:18, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Quoted, with thanks.[24] — JFG ^talk 20:07, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

No problem. On a related note, please advise as to Powerball picks by 10:59pm on Wednesday. Cosmic Sans (talk) 20:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

On a more serious note, though, this paragraph is really a prime example of what WP:RECENTISM is trying to avoid. It appears that there were some links between Trump and Epstein in the 90s. Is it ominous, or just an innocent example of a wealthy real estate developer and a wealthy financier crossing paths in NYC? Time will, obviously, tell. But presenting these facts, as they stand, seems like an attempt at guilt by association. So the removal of the paragraph was warranted. Cosmic Sans (talk) 20:16, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

It wasn`t an association it was a rape accusation 2600:1702:2340:9470:6038:F73D:212B:5647 (talk) 20:47, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Very similar to what I and others said here over a month ago. I also concur with the removal. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:45, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

OFFTOPIC the section as this is not “Investigations“ or ”Associates”. And I don’t see that “rape” mentioned ... the Politico cite of the last bit has the woman said the opposite, that Trump did not have sex or flirt with her. She accused other people - Dershowitz, Prince Andrew and a former PM. Nothing for this article, belongs in Prince Andrew. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:35, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Associates is a broad category. Bill and Hillary Clinton are associates - they attended his wedding - and Chelsea is friends with Ivanka Trump, but no one has added anything about them. TFD (talk) 04:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

It's murky because when a person reaches certain level of stardom/wealth/notoriety, there are likely many "associates" with whom that person has rubbed shoulders at one time or another. It doesn't mean there's a significant connection necessarily, and selectively choosing who we will deem an "associate" is just inviting NPOV problems. Cosmic Sans (talk) 13:57, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Whatever happened to that sour picture of him that people wanted to replace?

I thought it was the official photo, but even right after he was inaugurated, the history shows the one where he is smiling.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:57, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

You mean this one? — JFG ^talk 19:44, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I seem to recall a different one, where he was mad-mugging the camera. Cosmic Sans (talk) 19:51, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I think the one you're thinking of was deleted from Commons in this discussion due to improper copyright licensing. The Daily Dot did an article on the Commons deletion discussion, and includes the picture in the article, so you can see if it's the one you're thinking of. The reason the history shows the current one is because it was uploaded under the same name as the deleted one.~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:16, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

ONUnicorn, wow, I did not know that glowering photo was deleted. I think the file used in the infobox should be renamed. It's not the official portrait, right? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:07, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the current info box one is the official portrait. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 22:41, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

This photo is not the one I was asking about, but people hated it. And the one deleted from Commons may be it, but I don't think so. I looked all through the history of the current one and it never changed other than being upside down.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 14:38, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Trump's claim about "executing" babies (see section above)

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.

---

I see some back-and-forthing on the article page between User:JFG and User:SPECIFICO regarding this paragraph in the “Social issues” subsection of the “Domestic policy” section of “Presidency”. In his second removal, JFG said "Please engage in the relevant talk page discussion before editing;" however, there does not appear to be any such talk page discussion. So I am starting one. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:28, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

My mistake, I didn't realize that the section above titled "This reverted edit is not an "Undue anecdote of an isolated political incident" is about this subject. I am going to retitle that section to a more informative title, and move my comment and Muboshgu's there. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:43, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

MelanieN, easy mistake to make. That was not an informative section heading. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:54, 25 August 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.

Conspiracy theories promoted by Trump

We have this Category:Conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump, but no sub-article or section in an article, at least not that I can find, for this type of content:

This is the man who built a political career by fanning the fringe of American politics with fevered insinuations or allegations, including, but not limited to the baseless theories that:

• Barack Obama wasn't born in the US
• A rival's father was in on the John F. Kennedy assassination
• The 2016 presidential election was rigged against him even though he won
• Millions voted illegally for Hillary Clinton
• The US government spied on his campaign
• There's a deep state of bureaucrats organized against him
• The special counsel appointed by his Justice Department was actually a witch hunt organized by Democrats

Source: How Trump's paranoia and conspiracy theories become US policy, CNN

The source also describes Trump's promotion of a conspiracy theory about Jeffrey Epstein's death. He's often described using the hashtag #ConspiracyTheoristInChief, with myriad RS mentioning the subject, so where should we cover this subject? Does someone want to consolidate all this info in a sub-article entitled Conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump? -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:09, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I can't see this as a separate article, but it should probably be mentioned here briefly, and in a section at Veracity of statements by Donald Trump. Maybe with a redirect to that article. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:15, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:32, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

(ec) Pleeeeez no new article. If it passes WP:DUE, include something at Veracity of statements by Donald Trump, without excessive fretting about how it's not exactly the same thing. It's close enough. And probably nothing here, per #37. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:18, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Duh! Of course that's where it belongs. Thanks. There are at least 15 conspiracy theories pushed by Trump and 23 bizarre conspiracy theories Trump has elevated. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:25, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Is this a good time and place to complain that the lede fails to note that Trump came to major prominence in US politics by leading the birther cause?[25] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:34, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Only tangentially connected to the topic. Separate section, please. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:35, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

It belongs in the LEAD, the article and a separate article 2600:1702:2340:9470:C981:20D4:6DED:66B6 (talk) 19:17, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. This question was settled by RfC, as linked by Snooganssnoogans above. It would need a new RfC to overturn consensus. — JFG ^talk 22:46, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Five pillars 5th Pillar "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, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions. Be bold but not reckless in updating articles. And do not agonize over making mistakes: (almost) every past version of a page is saved, so mistakes can be easily corrected" 2600:1702:2340:9470:D515:E49A:D804:2E3B (talk) 03:25, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Which is not to say that you needn't bother learning Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and common practice. I suggest you spend some time doing that instead of throwing Pillar 5 at editors who have spent years doing it. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:29, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

You have an agenda which you are able to promote through the intricacies of this website..I cannot do that nor do I wish to..I have a right to express my own insight with the hope someone else can and will..you have no compassion for these children..I have an agenda too however I freely admit it...I don`t edit articles...that would be unethical 2600:1702:2340:9470:B09F:E71A:F6C6:4C73 (talk) 18:50, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Please don't attack other editors. This talk page is for making suggestions about improvements to the article. Administrators take a dim view of folks casting aspersions. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:20, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Plus you're wrong, unless you mean Mandruss's agenda of keeping things encyclopedic. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:13, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

In order to have a separate article you would need to show not just that Trump promoted conspiracy theories, but that it is a notable topic, which requires reliable sources. In this case I would expect to see articles by experts on conspiracism. These sources would explain why each of these claims is considered a conspiracy theory rather than speculation. It's not untypical for people under investigation to call it a witch hunt, so that might not be an actual conspiracy theory. TFD (talk) 21:06, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

• Ewwww. Tabloid is here. Except for the ones that seem kinda true - “collusion” hunting as Witch-hunt? Well, yes. A lot of bureaucrats hate him? Well, duhh. Election rigged? About as much as possible, every time by every candidate. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:53, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Mental health of Donald Trump

No need to reopen old discussions, thank you very much. Mgasparin (talk) 00:22, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Sorry if this is rehashing an old controversy, but I noticed that the Mental health of Donald Trump redirect goes here. Two questions about this: Why doesn't this page mention the controversy? I think there should be one sentence on this at least? Quickly scanning the page I can't see anything Wouldn't Goldwater_rule#Regarding_Donald_Trump be a better redirect for this topic? Thanks. --Bangalamania (talk) 17:54, 27 August 2019 (UTC) The answer to all these questions and more can be found here: [[26]] Cosmic Sans (talk) 18:05, 27 August 2019 (UTC) Cosmic Sans, I went there and found no occurrence of the word "redirect". The OP has a point, that the redirect is not appropriate since its target – Donald Trump#Health and lifestyle – contains nothing about the mental health of Donald Trump. The question should be raised at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, where it can be decided whether to delete the redirect or retarget it. With that said we probably don't need any further discussion here. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:14, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Trump's senior year at Wharton

"His dreams of captaining the US Military Academy's football team before going on to a glorious career as a military officer were shattered when he was diagnosed with bone spurs his senior year."

I looked at the references and could find no evidence that Trump had dreams of "going on to a glorious career as a military officer."

Retiredteacher (talk) 14:36, 24 August 2019 (UTC) Paul Totaro, retired teacher

Agreed. Delete.Lindenfall (talk) 19:48, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

You don't need prior discussion to remove unsourced content, assuming (as I do) that you made a good faith effort to find the sourcing. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:37, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

[27] this was the problematic addition. seems like vandalism. reported to WP:AE. starship.paint (talk) 08:16, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Consensus #17

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current president of the United States. Before entering politics, he was a businessman and television personality. MOS:CURRENTLY and WP:PRECISELANG say the word "current" should be avoided. Trimming the two words "and current" changes nothing in the meaning, and it's always preferable to use fewer words. I propose updating consensus #17 to Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th president of the United States. Before entering politics, he was a businessman and television personality. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:52, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Both guidelines cite as exceptions articles that are regularly updated. This is such an article. I will (would) lay real money that the "and current" will be removed within 8 hours of it becoming untrue. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:20, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

And it does change the meaning, or there are about 45 current U.S. presidents. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:22, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Mandruss, that's why we use other language for former presidents. Barack Hussein Obama II' (born August 4, 1961) is an American attorney and politician who served as the 44th president of the United States from 2009 to 2017. That's how to denote a former president, so "and current" is not necessary here. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:26, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Point taken, but it wouldn't be obviously incorrect to say that Barack Obama is the 44th president (until he ceases to exist), so the "and current" is required to avoid all ambiguity. Readers surely can't be expected to go survey other articles to determine what we mean at this one. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:30, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a compelling reason to change here. While it is true that "current" should be avoided, I don't think it is doing any harm here because the article is constantly maintained. WP:CURRENTLY is mainly a thing to prevent articles becoming dated - no chance of that happening here. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:37, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

• Using the word "current" is appropriate here. If a reader knew nothing about Donald Trump, merely saying that he is the 45th President does not convey that he is currently sitting as President. Cosmic Sans (talk) 16:40, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Trump's Mental Health as valid subject

El CI am wondering why Trump's mental health is off limits. I read this above "Since 2017 the Donald Trump article has had a talk-page consensus to “Omit any opinions about Trump's psychology held by mental health academics or professionals who have not examined him.” Previous discussions: link 1, July 2017; link 2, July-August 2017"

There is a problem here. First: patient client privilege forbids a psychiatrist from divulging such info. Second:Trump would never submit,Third:HIPPA prohibits physicians/psychiatrist from mentioning this in public. Therefore unless it is self divulged it will never be in the public domain, and I do not believe that Trump's ego and narcissism would permit him to sit down with a mental health professional,now or later.

This decision was made years ago, but time has brought forth many well qualified and certified pyschiatrists who have rendered an evaluation, a consensus, in one case over 20 such have concurred, that Trump is mentally unfit to hold the office. This is relevant and important and not at all a violation of BLP, especially since they come from current RS.Oldperson (talk) 22:34, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

This comment is fine, though why it was submitted to the archive rather than to the talk page proper, is puzzling. Comments that questions the sanity of a living person by referencing a tweet, are a problem, however. El_C 00:29, 8 October 2019 (UTC)