Talk:Donald Trump: Difference between revisions

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Donald Trump article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171Auto-archiving period: 7 days

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Donald Trump article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171Auto-archiving period: 7 days

Want to add new information about Donald Trump? Most often, it should not go here. Please consider choosing the most appropriate article, for example: Timeline of the Donald Trump presidency (2024 Q2) List of presidential trips made by Donald Trump (2024) Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration Donald Trump on social media Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019) Mueller Report …or dozens of other places, as listed in {{Donald Trump series}}. Thanks!

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Further information Enforcement procedures: Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense. With respect to the WP:1RR restriction: Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as obvious vandalism. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion. Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance. Whenever you are relying on one of these exemptions, you should refer to it in your edit summary and, if applicable, link to the discussion where consensus was clearly established. The contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topics sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. Biography: Arts and Entertainment / Politics and Government B‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Top-importance). Business B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Donald Trump B‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Donald Trump, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Donald Trump on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Donald TrumpWikipedia:WikiProject Donald TrumpTemplate:WikiProject Donald TrumpDonald Trump articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. New York City B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Conservatism B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics: American B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Top-importance). United States: Television / Presidential elections / Presidents / Government B‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American television task force (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject United States Presidents (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as High-importance). Template:WP1.0

Readership

This was the most viewed article on Wikipedia for the week of December 6–12, 2015; January 31–February 6, February 21–27, February 28–March 5, March 6–12, March 13–19, October 9–15, October 16–22, November 6–12, and November 13–19, 2016; January 15–21 and January 22–28, 2017, according to the Top 25 Report. Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Cuozzo, Steve (November 16, 2013). "Don't Trust Anything on Wikipedia". New York Post. Popper, Ben (July 22, 2015). "Someone just deleted Donald Trump's entire Wikipedia page". The Verge. Merrill, Jeremy (February 1, 2016). "On Wikipedia, Donald Trump Reigns and Facts Are Open to Debate". New York Times . Germ, Erik (May 28, 2016). "5 Secretly Bizarre Sections Of Websites You Use Every Day". Cracked.com. Guo, Jeff (October 25, 2016). "Wikipedia is fixing one of the Internet's biggest flaws". The Washington Post. Alcantara, Chris (October 27, 2016). "The most challenging job of the 2016 race: Editing the candidates' Wikipedia pages". The Washington Post. Staff Writer (December 21, 2016). "Most-edited Wikipedia pages of 2016 revealed". BBC News. Gartenberg, Chaim (January 20, 2017). "Wikipedia editors can't decide if Trump is the president yet". The Verge. Wyrich, Andrew (June 5, 2017). "Someone is trying to get Trump's official portrait deleted from Wikipedia". The Daily Dot. Warren, Tom (22 November 2018). "Siri thinks Donald Trump is a penis". The Verge. Blumenthal, Eli (22 November 2018). "Wikipedia vandalizing causes Siri to show a lewd image when asked about Donald Trump". USA Today. Griffin, Andrew (23 November 2018). "Asking Siri for information about Donald Trump shows explicit image after Wikipedia edit". The Independent. Gander, Kashmira (23 November 2018). "Someone hacked Donald Trump's Wikipedia page, replaced photo with image of penis". Newsweek. Martin, Alan (26 November 2018). "The Trump penis Wikipedia war has kicked off again". The Inquirer. Brandom, Russell (December 4, 2018). "Wikipedia engages the 'nuclear option' after Trump penis hack". The Verge. Mak, Aaron (May 28, 2019). "Donald Trump's Wikipedia Entry Is a War Zone". Slate.

Donald Trump was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones Date Process Result June 2, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed February 12, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed September 18, 2016 Good article nominee Not listed May 25, 2017 Good article nominee Not listed December 2, 2018 Good article nominee Not listed July 15, 2019 Good article nominee Not listed News items involving this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on June 12, 2018, and November 9, 2018. Current status: Former good article nominee

Template:Vital article

Other talk page banners

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. Health of Donald Trump was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 13 June 2019 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Donald Trump. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Section sizes Section size for Donald Trump (95 sections) Section name Byte count Section total (Top) 10,621 10,621 Personal life 20 23,219 Early life 6,403 6,403 Family 1,591 1,591 Religion 1,819 1,819 Health habits 3,483 3,483 Wealth 9,903 9,903 Business career 120 35,827 Real estate 1,789 13,249 Manhattan developments 5,334 5,334 Atlantic City casinos 4,008 4,008 Clubs 2,118 2,118 Licensing of the Trump brand 1,706 1,706 Side ventures 7,104 10,328 Trump University 3,224 3,224 Foundation 5,663 5,663 Legal affairs and bankruptcies 4,761 4,761 Media career 58 5,583 Books 1,107 1,107 Film and television 4,418 4,418 Political career 2,280 28,867 Presidential campaigns (2000–2016) 3,215 26,587 2016 presidential campaign 8,207 23,372 Campaign rhetoric and political positions 6,381 6,381 Financial disclosures 3,457 3,457 Election to the presidency 5,327 5,327 Presidency (2017–2021) 125 204,611 Early actions 2,215 2,215 Conflicts of interest 2,937 2,937 Domestic policy 24 25,149 Economy 4,251 4,251 Climate change, environment, and energy 4,731 4,731 Deregulation 3,561 3,561 Health care 4,090 4,090 Social issues 8,492 8,492 Pardons and commutations 2,569 2,569 Immigration 5,047 23,502 Travel ban 5,245 5,245 Family separation at border 6,599 6,599 Trump wall and government shutdown 6,611 6,611 Foreign policy 3,229 37,019 Trade 2,551 2,551 Russia 4,828 4,828 China 5,099 5,099 North Korea 5,651 5,651 Afghanistan 3,091 3,091 Israel 2,676 2,676 Saudi Arabia 2,221 2,221 Syria 3,951 3,951 Iran 3,722 3,722 Personnel 8,879 8,879 Judiciary 4,722 4,722 COVID-19 pandemic 291 33,328 Initial response 7,920 7,920 White House Coronavirus Task Force 6,059 6,059 World Health Organization 2,679 2,679 Pressure to abandon pandemic mitigation measures 8,226 8,226 Political pressure on health agencies 2,680 2,680 Outbreak at the White House 3,129 3,129 Effects on the 2020 presidential campaign 2,344 2,344 Investigations 4,167 25,956 Russian election interference 6,490 6,490 FBI Crossfire Hurricane and 2017 counterintelligence investigations 2,570 2,570 Mueller investigation 12,729 12,729 First impeachment 6,791 10,513 Impeachment trial in the Senate 3,722 3,722 2020 presidential campaign 4,752 4,752 2020 presidential election 3,552 22,945 False claims of voting fraud, attempt to prevent presidential transition 9,356 9,356 Concern about a possible coup attempt or military action 2,614 2,614 January 6 Capitol attack 4,028 4,028 Second impeachment 3,395 3,395 Post-presidency (2021–present) 4,730 42,552 Business activities 2,382 2,382 Investigations, criminal indictments and convictions, civil lawsuits 1,154 29,243 FBI investigations 5,489 5,489 Criminal referral by the House January 6 Committee 683 683 Federal and state criminal indictments 7,907 7,907 Criminal conviction in Stormy Daniels hush money case 8,186 8,186 Civil judgments against Trump 5,824 5,824 2024 presidential campaign 6,197 6,197 Public image 58 53,894 Scholarly assessment and public approval surveys 6,099 6,099 False or misleading statements 9,216 9,216 Promotion of conspiracy theories 4,223 4,223 Incitement of violence 3,081 3,081 Social media 6,123 6,123 Relationship with the press 5,821 5,821 Racial views 14,186 14,186 Misogyny and allegations of sexual misconduct 4,479 4,479 Popular culture 608 608 Notes 136 136 References 30 1,189 Works cited 1,159 1,159 External links 5,194 5,194 Total 411,693 411,693

• #RfC: Exercise, take 2, about how to address Trump's physical exercise habits

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Biographies When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

A recent discussion reached no consensus on how to mention Trump's exercise or lack thereof, but two options were deemed worthy of being discussed in a binary survey, so here it is. Which of these sentences should be tacked on to the first paragraph of Trump's "Health" section? — JFG ^talk 16:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Option A: Trump does not exercise, viewing it as a waste of energy.^[1][2]
• Option B: He has called golfing his "primary form of exercise",^[3] although he usually does not walk the course.^[4][5]

— JFG ^talk 16:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Atsme proposed Option C: no inclusion. BullRangifer proposed Option D [1], which has elements of both A and B. starship.paint (talk) 06:35, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

• Option B. If he says that golf is exercise for him, then he doesn't not does exercise. He just does not do a whole lot. We don't really have much of an option except to take his word for it here. Mgasparin (talk) 20:00, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Mgasparin: - hold up, it's not just his word. Here's White House Doctor Ronny Jackson in January 2018 [2] regarding Trump's exercise: "Some people exercise, some people don’t. Some people just haven’t done that as part of their routine. And I would say that’s the category he falls in right now" starship.paint (talk) 01:28, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Starship.paint True. But just because he doesn't have a routine doesn't mean that he doesn't exercise. It just means that he doesn't really have a plan for exercising, apart from walking around the White House and golfing. Mgasparin (talk) 02:51, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Option D per BullRangifer's vote on 15 August. Second choice - option B. starship.paint (talk) - first voted 3 August, edited comment on 21 August.
• Option C - don't include - it does not have lasting encyclopedic value. If he dies from lack of exercise, then it will have lasting encyclopedic value. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:35, 3 August 2019 (UTC) ^{adding to my iVote: NOTCRYSTAL, NOTGOSSIP. Facts only, please - quote his doctor using in-text attribution if we include anything at all. 14:13, 3 August 2019 (UTC)}[reply]

  Atsme, who dies from a lack of exercise? A lack of exercise is not a disease. Also - he already has a consequence of lack of exercise - he is obese. You don't need to die for it to be important. starship.paint (talk) 01:42, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Exactly, and it's not encyclopedic, either. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:55, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Option B. I agree with the added wording suggested by starship.paint. I think the entire wording should be "Trump was judged in 2018 to lack a history of exercising routinely. He has called golf his "primary form of exercise". (I'm omitting the last part which says "although he usually does not walk the course". I think it is unnecessary.) Bus stop (talk) 03:10, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B with the part regarding not walking the course..it is relevant to his health..if he has a heart attack things will change in the US probably dramatically 2600:1702:2340:9470:951D:EEE3:FE92:D97A (talk) 04:37, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Even if he were to walk the golf-course it would be at a leisurely pace. Bus stop (talk) 05:09, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Option B.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:32, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option A Short and directly to the point of his health, which is the section it is in. Option B does not seem to have a direct connection to his health, just a random comment out of nowhere about how he plays golf. If people think Option A is too blunt and dismissive - since everyone gets at least some exercise - it could be reworded to "Trump does not have a formal exercise plan, viewing exercise as a waste of energy". -- MelanieN (talk) 15:43, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B – A weekly round of golf is a reasonable form of exercise for a 73-years-old fat male (even when riding a cart along, per NPR: Golf Is Exercise, Cart Or No Cart). Why people are so upset that Trump does not hit the gym is beyond me. Orange man bad, I guess. — JFG ^talk 15:51, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That (your NPR link) is not how the orange cheater plays golf, cart or no cart. Upset? The reactions were more bemused than bothered; you don’t hear the opinion every day that human bodies are like non-rechargeable batteries. Millions aren’t losing any sleep worrying about Trump’s physical health, at least not until they remember Pence. Trump attached a flashing neon target to his ample rump by harping on other people’s health and by having his physicians put out press releases gushing about "the healthiest individual ever" and "could live to be 200," and then Mr. Stamina had the stretch golf cart brought around to be driven 700 yards down a gently sloping road in Taormina while other world leaders walked. Forget the fish; that’s like shooting a big fat whale in a barrel. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:47, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting - my Mom will be 96 next month - never exercised a day in her life - smoked 2 packs of cigs/day until she was in her 60s, retired last year, just drove 200 miles (each way) to see her great-great grandkids. It's all about genetics. Adhere to MEDRS, consensus from the AfD, and NPOV. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:21, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Following the ping, I reaffirm my choice of option B. Option D is too verbose, but if it is chosen, I would suggest trimming it to He considers exercise a waste of energy, not with the extra quote because he believes the body is "like a battery, with a finite amount of energy" which is depleted by exercise. — JFG ^talk 00:03, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Option A. I agree with MelanieN on this one; it's short and to the point, while the other option seems like a somewhat trivial comment about how he plays golf. --Tataral (talk) 17:04, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option A again. I thought, in fact, we already had a consensus for this. I hate it when we have duplicate surveys because people weren't happy with the way consensus went the first time. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:21, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Scjessey: You had a low-participation discussion that was not closed, leaving the consensus question a bit fuzzy. Your preference led but was then defeated by a different option in a higher-participation discussion, strongly suggesting that it led because of the low participation. In my uninvolved close of the second discussion, I judged that that fact invalidated the first discussion, so blame me. Surely, any consensus worth a damn isn't reversed when you ask a larger crowd three weeks later. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  After receiving a ping about new options, I'm just here to reiterate my view that option A is the way to go. My second choice, since that's apparently a thing now, would be to exclude all mention completely. Driving around in a golf cart is not exercise, and never will be. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Option B seems like the better of the two options, but whether it should really be included is a different question all together. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Emir of Wikipedia: - Option C has already been introduced. Feel free to argue for it instead. But "seems like the better of the two options" is essentially a democratic vote and one I would discard if I were to close this. Please say how or why it's better. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:36, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

B seems better to me as it includes more of the full context regarding Trump's exercise. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:18, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Option A is the better of the two, since it relates explicitly to exercise and his view of it. Option B is elevating a personal reflection to affirm, implicitly, that golf (walking or not) has anything to do with exercise or health. The article would be better with neither A nor B, but I guess that ship has sailed. SPECIFICO talk 13:36, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option D Changing after ping about new choices. It gives biographical information about his personality and thinking. I wouldn't include this kind of subjective detail in his Presidency or other articles, but in the bio it adds a certain je ne sais quoi. The article wouldn't suffer terribly if C we left this out. We know it cannot be B, because that is SYNTH. As such, that option B should not even be an RfC option. SPECIFICO talk 21:07, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option C or neither – What I am seeing here is that Trump either does not exercise (as I do sometimes but regularly), or he does and the exercise is not quite vigorous. I would say that he does exercise to some extent in the form of playing golf, but not a lot. Perhaps a better option would be to state his opinion on exercise and his rather tame golf activity—which partly contradicts his opinion. I can do with or without Option C, but I personally cannot choose either of the first two options, since A excludes his golf activity and B unsatisfactorily describes Mr. Trump's attitude on exercise, apart from his golfing.
  ³⁶⁵ 22:48, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Option D or Option A equally - These are straightforward, comprehensive, and appropriate weight, and have the best sources. I agree with the analysis by MelanieN, Tataral, and SPECIFICO. I could live with A+B (i.e., all the content together) if necessary but that would not be my first choice. I oppose Option B— there is absolutely no reason to cite his own Tweets and "Golf News Net" when far better sources are available. And Option C (excising all reference to it whatsoever) has no policy-based backing at all. Neutrality^talk 22:53, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A+B takes the cake! SPECIFICO talk 22:58, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Option C. This is useless trivia that doesn't belong in a professional encyclopedia article. The article is already too long as it is, and useless trivia like this only compounds the problem. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:16, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B - he does golf, that's well known. I still prefer it as more neutral in just saying what the exercise is. But I’m also still dubious that anything is needed. It seems like it was just put in as a means to do yet more sniping over trivial bits and is not a big part of his life or his coverage WEIGHT. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:50, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B but favor Option C/Nothing - This is so uncyclopedic that I laughed out loud while reading the options. His frequent golfing could fit into the encyclopedia somewhere, so I'll side with Option B, but I'd prefer if "exercise" had nothing to do with its framing.LM2000 (talk) 06:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment for closing administrator. Comments suggesting that this info is somehow unencyclopedic should receive little or no weight. Inclusion of this material is consistent with the principle that an encyclopedic biography should incorporate content on various aspects of the subject's life. Our article Dwight D. Eisenhower spends one whole paragraph on golf playing, plus at least two more paragraphs on his oil painting and bridge playing. The article George Washington spends a paragraph, plus another sentence, on his equestrian skills, theater attendance, and other hobbies. The article Jimmy Carter notes that "Carter's hobbies include painting, fly-fishing, woodworking, cycling, tennis, and skiing." Neutrality^talk 04:32, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Option B, but favor Nothing at all. I think it's kind of ridiculous to put this in an encyclopedia but if it absolutely MUST be included, then I'd prefer the more informative option.
  talk) 18:31, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Option A. The guy does not exercise. Stay short and concise.
  talk) 20:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Option A Use this as it is factual, (he's been quoted as such); not B, as it appears desperate to offer an editorial counter claim to negate any notion of exercise being taken. It also seems
  WP:OR. Bodding (talk) 14:31, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Option B. Also -- mentioning both of his statements, or neither, would also be reasonable solutions.MaximumIdeas (talk) 20:42, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Nothing would be my first choice. Option B if I was forced to choose or both would also be acceptable if Option A was modified. Option A, as currently worded, is not specifically indicated by the sources it cites. The sources do not exactly say he does not exercise. They say (1) he does not use the fitness center in the White House and (2) he has given up athletics since college. To say he "does not exercise" would be synthesis, because what the sources say is that he believes that "exercise would be a waste of the energy" and depletes a human's "finite energy". That is not the same thing as he "does not exercise". --- Coffeeandcrumbs 06:10, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like Option CD.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:56, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @
      Coffeeandcrumbs: If you like it better than "Nothing", please modify your !vote to show it first. Throw the closer a bone, their job is hard enough already. And it can be shown as simply "Option D"; the strikethrough below was needed only to preserve context for ONUnicorn's Option C !vote below it. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:22, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • I rank my !vote in the following order D/C/B not A.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:14, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B, but would prefer them combined in this fashion:

• Option CD: He has called golfing his "primary form of exercise",^[1] although he usually does not walk the course.^[2][3] He considers exercise a waste of energy, because he believes the body is "like a battery, with a finite amount of energy" which is depleted by exercise.^[4][5]

Writing "nothing" would be too simple, uninformative, and a bit misleading because he is actually anti-exercise, and my version covers the subject quite thoroughly without actually saying "anti-exercise". --

talk) 15:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Option CD (above). ~
  problem solving 16:05, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Option B per above.. option B gives the facts concisely and letting the reader interpret the facts as they are. Otherwise option C do not include.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:36, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

^ @realDonaldTrump (July 14, 2018). "I have arrived in Scotland and will be at Trump Turnberry for two days of meetings, calls and hopefully, some golf - my primary form of exercise! The weather is beautiful, and this place is incredible! Tomorrow I go to Helsinki for a Monday meeting with Vladimir Putin" (Tweet). Retrieved July 4, 2019 – via Twitter. ^ "Donald Trump says he gets most of his exercise from golf, then uses cart at Turnberry". Golf News Net. July 14, 2018. Retrieved July 4, 2019. ^ Mason, Jeff; Holland, Steve (January 18, 2018). "Exercise? I get more than people think, Trump says". Reuters. He gets exercise by playing golf, he said, even though he typically rides around the course in a golf cart. ^ Diamond, Jeremy; Liptak, Kevin (February 7, 2019). "Ahead of annual physical, Trump has not followed doctor's orders". CNN. Nearly a dozen White House officials and sources close to Trump said they don't believe he's set foot in the fitness room in the White House residence, maintaining his view that exercise would be a waste of the energy he has always touted as one of his best attributes. ^ "Trump thinks that exercising too much uses up the body's finite energy". The Washington Post. May 12, 2017. Trump mostly gave up athletics after college because he "believed the human body was like a battery, with a finite amount of energy, which exercise only depleted."

Discussion

To inform you, there are additional options for your consideration presented after your vote was cast: Option C (do not include) and Option D (see BullRangifer's vote). starship.paint (talk) 02:54, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Mgasparin, Bus stop, Jack Upland, and JFG: starship.paint (talk) 02:55, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• @MelanieN, Scjessey, Tataral, and Emir of Wikipedia: starship.paint (talk) 02:56, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• @Neutrality, SPECIFICO, Rreagan007, and Markbassett: starship.paint (talk) 02:56, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• @
  Cosmic Sans: starship.paint (talk) 02:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• @
  Gamingforfun365 and LM2000: starship.paint (talk) 02:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

So do we have to !vote again? I reaffirm my preference for option A. Second choice, option C, do not mention. I oppose option D as TMI; a single sentence is enough for the Health section -- MelanieN (talk) 19:42, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why must there be a 'do over' on this? I can't believe that something this silly needed a RFA to begin with. As per Melanie, I reaffirm my choice of option A. Furthermore, once a question has been put to a vote, there are no other options to be put in. Who is making these decisions? Just because you don't like choices independent editors are taking, which is presumably why you have this ridiculous RFA to begin with, then that's it. That's the comment you requested. You don't then add in more options because you don't like the choices. Bodding (talk) 15:47, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It's an absurd way to do things, and we already "voted" on this in an earlier thread. Quite often, people insist on new RfCs (or messing around with existing RfCs) because they were unhappy with the earlier result. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:01, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The result should stand and that should be the end of it. Solved, decided, done. Next. . .Bodding (talk) 18:29, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk) 15:09, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply

]

I agree.

talk) 15:32, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

(ec) Pleeeeez no new article. If it passes

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)[reply

]

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. --

talk) 15:25, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

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?[3]

talk) 15:34, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply

]

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

It's like you read my mind, JFG. I've been thinking about that paragraph for a couple days. It does seem inappropriate.

talk) 19:18, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Quoted, with thanks.[4] — JFG ^talk 20:07, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. On a related note, please advise as to Powerball picks by 10:59pm on Wednesday.

talk) 20:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

On a more serious note, though, this paragraph is really a prime example of what

talk) 20:16, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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.

talk) 13:57, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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

I seem to recall a different one, where he was mad-mugging the camera.

talk) 19:51, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

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.~

problem solving 20:16, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

Yes, the current info box one is the official portrait. ~

problem solving 22:41, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

This reverted edit is not an "Undue anecdote of an isolated political incident"

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&curid=4848272&diff=911205746&oldid=911178512

The cited reliable sources characterize it as "a staple of his rallies" and "what is fast becoming a standard, and inaccurate, refrain about doctors “executing babies,” and I can add "Trump repeats, falsely, that doctors, mothers decide to execute live babies after birth." and "at a rally in Green Bay, Wisconsin, Donald Trump repeated his absurd claim that pro-choice women and doctors are “executing” newborns." and "Trump’s comments Saturday — in which he repeated a claim that doctors are “executing” babies..." and "Trump repeated what has become one of the more frighteningly dishonest claims from the right lately regarding abortion..." The edit should be restored. soibangla (talk) 17:17, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Leave out. You forgot to mention the deletion comment “Undue anecdote of an isolated political incident”. This is just a tidbit from a rally, trivia and OFFTOPIC for a BLP. The Twitter-blog also isn’t a good RS to be pulling from. The USAtoday is good, but again that one politician misportrays the opposing side positions isn’t surprising, and this one particular April example is not particularly noted. NOTEVERYTHING applies, keep this bloated article more for major and Biographical items. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 18:05, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot to mention the deletion comment “Undue anecdote of an isolated political incident” Ahem. soibangla (talk) 18:15, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Soibangla "Ahem" ? What ?? You made a declaration of its untruth the section title but then said nothing about it. Not said as being the deletion comment, gave no counter-evidence to show DUE other than your personal denial, nor some additional article discussing how it is a non-isolated important or as it being personal rather than political, you're just giving a "yes it is" denying it and reiterating a bit from the same cites here and there. But that isn't responding at ALL to the comment which seems reasonable to me nor is it giving additional (better) sources. I don't think every snip from Politifact belongs here or can fit, and this seem not BLP and the exact quote given seems just a line in a rally of April that is not particularly DUE. Doing a Google on wrapping the baby beautifully I see only 23,000 hits ... this is a trivia item, does not deserve inclusion let alone detailed quotes. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:57, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be interested to hear explanations of how Politico+Associated Press(via USA Today)+New York Times (and likely more) fails WEIGHT. Anyone? A stronger argument, while still debatable, would be that this fails consensus #37. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:21, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mandruss - I'll offer one explanation for UNDUE of 'not widely covered' at least re this citing of this particular rally speech to the detail of quoting - and not just 'litle' coverage, the line "they wrap the baby beautifully" and Trump seems zero coverage in my usual breadth checks at BBC and Fox. I also see "no result" hits at CBS, NBCnews, ABCnews.go.com, WSJ, CBC.ca, LA Times, etcetera. Now if I change it to "you wrap the baby beautifully" I see hits for Florida in May -- saying it is a misrepresentation of what Northam said. Neither the April line nor the May line has much WEIGHT, it seems just a ding of the moment about someone ELSE's gaff that Trump said a couple times rather than any long history or big deal, so - other than us - nobody seems continuing coverage of it. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:33, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware that WEIGHT requires wide coverage across all RS, or continuing coverage. These are things invented by Wikipedia editors extra-policy (and often applied inconsistently depending on whether the editor likes or dislikes the content in question). The sources cited, even if that's all there is, do not constitute the "extremely small minority" required by WEIGHT for omission. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:47, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DUE clearly says “in proportion to the prominence” ... and that undue weight can be given by amount of text and depth of detail. So a full anecdotal blip plus quote for something most sources chose to not cover at all, and even the ones that did seem just one backpage mention? UNDUE anecdote of an isolated political incident sounds about right. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:08, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Absolutely belongs in
  Veracity of statements by Donald Trump, but unless this specific thing becomes biographically significant, it's hard to make a case for it to be in this main article. Trump tells so many shocking lies, it's rare that any single lie is notable enough for inclusion now, even one as outrageous as this one (which doubtless would've ended the presidency of any of his predecessors). A sad indictment on how bad things have become. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:29, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Definitely belongs. It's part of his use of anti-abortionists as a core voting block. Guy (Help!) 20:01, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to other article. This is a biography, not a catalogue of lies by Trump. Just because it exits doesn't mean it belongs here. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:09, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  It was already put in another article about 5 minutes before being added here [5].--MONGO (talk) 22:20, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh that again. Seems a persistent behaviour to copy-paste-paste-paste such. So we’re posting every anecdote on even teeny items and doing it repeatedly. *sigh*. Markbassett (talk) 00:28, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep it in. It is a massive issue. Currently there's just one sentence from 2016 in the article.
  zzz (talk) 00:19, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• It belongs, per those above saying keep. Probably with a trim. starship.paint (talk) 01:17, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Trump's personal position on abortion is already described in the article; there is no indication that it has changed since 2016, and he took no action as president to change any of the relevant laws. The quote I removed was indeed an anecdotal reaction to a story-of-the-day when some politicians made a fuss about a state decision on some medical cases. That is very much UNDUE for Trump's BLP, especially in light of consensus #37. This is not the "encyclopedia of everything Trump ever said at a rally or on Twitter". — JFG ^talk 21:53, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]