Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 98

— JFG ^talk 02:14, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah fine. No opinion on oldest/wealthiest. starship.paint (talk) 03:10, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Perfectly happy with this version. Mentioning his advanced years is ageist, and mentioning he's wealthy is vulgar, so I wouldn't be opposed to losing the age/wealth thing as Starship.paint said. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:39, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

In the last sentence, "perceived" needs to be changed to "characterized". Rreagan007 (talk) 21:16, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, due to the recent RfC that found consensus to replace this word. Updated above. — JFG ^talk 14:50, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

What needs to happen is not just changing "perceived" to "characterized" - this entire sentence needs to be removed. How can this sentence NOT be deleted? It is inflammatory and not cited, and it is written as if it were fact. Stating opinion of this type, even if it is the opinion of the majority of editors as well as left-leaning journalists, it is just that - opinion - not fact. Further, this violates the neutral point of view policy of Wikipedia. JohnTopShelf (talk) 17:14, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@

WP:LEDECITE. -- Scjessey (talk

) 21:56, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

That some people characterize some of President Trump's statements as racist is not factual - it is the opinion of those people. JohnTopShelf (talk) 17:28, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Please don’t use terms like “left-leaning journalists”. Trump was called out for racist acts and words when he was a Democrat. O3000 (talk) 17:36, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

According to our article "Trump's political party affiliation has changed numerous times over the years. He registered as a Republican in Manhattan in 1987, switched to the Reform Party in 1999, the Democratic Party in 2001, and back to the Republican Party in 2009." So you are saying that some people called Trump racist when he was a Democrat. And the Democratic Party has also changed somewhat in the intervening period of time, has it not? Bus stop (talk) 17:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Trump's problems with race go back to his young days. I'm just saying, we shouldn't use terms like “left-leaning journalists” in an attempt to marginalize sources that someone finds inconvenient. O3000 (talk) 18:27, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose 2600:1702:2340:9470:5922:3A4A:33F9:16A4 (talk) 21:26, 15 May 2019 (UTC) — 2600:1702:2340:9470:5922:3A4A:33F9:16A4 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Just putting this here since I don't see that it's been mentioned yet. Courtesy ping to those mentioned in the article (since I figure I'd want to be notified): @

JFG since you talked to them - maybe you can tell Slate to correct Instead, administrators with special editing privileges weigh the quality of the arguments made on both sides against Wikipedia’s editorial policies on things like neutrality and reliable sourcing, and make a decision. starship.paint (talk) 23:34, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Starship, that isn't far off. Most articles about us do far worse. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:47, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Nevetheless, it can be improved. Just like our articles. Ha! starship.paint (talk) 23:54, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Shall we open an RfC on what he got wrong? (j/k) I would say his main misunderstanding is, he seemed to think that admins act only as admins here - and missed the fact that we sometimes argue about content just like everybody else. (Would we have to explain

WP:INVOLVED?) -- MelanieN (talk

) 00:17, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

@MelanieN: - I thought his main misunderstanding is only admins can close discussions. I thought any uninvolved editor can do that. Am I wrong?? Your perceived misunderstanding also has merits - so there are two misunderstandings...? starship.paint (talk) 00:51, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. Any uninvolved editor can close a discussion - generally it should be someone with a respected presence and track record here, but there are no requirements. BTW I think it is highly likely that the author of the piece is watching our reactions here, so anything you want to say, you can just say directly to him. Much clearer than just saying "he was wrong about this" without saying in what way you thought he was wrong. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:46, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

"administrators (volunteers who apply for the right to wield special override abilities" - I think many admins would object to that characterization, which strongly implies that they have some kind of special authority, rights, or influence as to content (other than the indirect effects of blocking and page protection). I'm surprised you haven't. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:57, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I think we are talking about the same thing here: his misunderstanding of the role of admins. He seems to think we have a supervisory role in content. We don't. The special tools and abilities we have relate to things other than editorial content. We are still editors, and we can edit and discuss content like anyone else - but when we do, we are not acting as administrators in that area, and we are forbidden from using our tools to enforce our preferred content. You all have often see me say here, when I express an opinion or !vote, that I am speaking here as a regular editor and not an administrator. We can't wear both hats at once. Since I am

WP:INVOLVED at this and other Trump articles, I don't take administrator actions here, except to protect a page when necessary, or to block obvious trolls. I do sometimes comment on the way the discussion is going ("cool it, you guys") but so could anyone else. I do occasionally close a discussion I did not take part in, but so could anyone else. -- MelanieN (talk

) 15:03, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Wow. I consider this the most accurate and insightful description of the Wikipedia process I have ever seen; most journalists get us way, way wrong. Worth a full read. Apparently the author of the piece sometimes edits WP himself; that may explain why he gets it. Anyhow, this piece should be added to the "media mentions" section at the top of this page. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:46, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

It was already added, hours earlier. starship.paint (talk) 23:49, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Good, I should have known. I would guess he sent emails to everyone he mentions in the article, asking if they would care to comment. I got the email but didn't reply. Looks like JFG replied. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:17, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

BTW one of the really cool things in the article is the animated graphics: the way they illustrate a phrase being added, deleted, re-added, changed... just like sometimes happens here. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:22, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

"Unofficial editorial board" = "regulars", I guess. I kind of like the sound of the former. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:24, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I didn't receive an email. I would much rather have been portrayed as a defender of WP's NPOV but gotta laugh at the irony. We just got a short walk in the shoes of some BLPs who find themselves the subject of an article in MSM. Imagine how the criticized, desparaged and/or wrongly accused subjects in some of our AP2 BLPs must feel when we cite RS that didn't get the story quite right, or spun parts of it, or went into an interview with their own political biases and preconceived notions. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:41, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

RS that didn't get the story quite right - that happens - we expect corrections once they are notified. spun parts of it, or went into an interview with their own political biases and preconceived notions Can you explain how this article did that? starship.paint (talk) 00:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, Atsme, I thought he got it exactly right as "a user who often defends Trump", but I am curious: which articles here do you think are about "criticized, desparaged and/or wrongly accused subjects in some of our AP2 BLPs"? We should fix those. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:51, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

MelanieN, from my perspective, getting the article right and adhering to NPOV and BLP is not what I consider defending Trump. Help me out here - can you provide a diff so I can better understand why I'm perceived as a "user who often defends Trump" rather than as a user who is trying to adhere to NPOV, RECENTISM, NEWSORG, or other PAG? I guess it's possible that it's an impression based on one's interpretation of what constitutes defense. I was accused off-wiki of being a member of the hate Trump cabal and then accused of being the opposite when I protested being a member of a cabal so maybe I'm doing something right. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 05:33, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

@Atsme: As I told Aaron when trying to assess when NPOV is reached, “When, on the same article, you’ve got a group of editors who say, ‘This is absolutely biased one way,’ and you have another bunch of editors who say, ‘This is absolutely biased the other way,’ ” JFG told me, “that’s when you’re correct.” I think Jimbo said it best many years ago, and I can't trace his quote right now, so mine will do. — JFG ^talk 08:32, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Aaron Mak! I assume you are reading our reactions here. Any comments? (You don't have to say anything if you don't want to. Your privacy is respected here just like everyone else's.) -- MelanieN (talk) 03:53, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Dear author of this Slate article, may I suggest the following correction, per Melanie's comment, CTRL-F 03:46, 29 May : Instead, users who are not involved in the dispute weigh the quality of the arguments made on both sides against Wikipedia’s editorial policies on things like neutrality and reliable sourcing, and make a decision. starship.paint (talk) 04:29, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

, but almost never rule against the majority. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:08, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

That is not correct: many discussions are closed against the numerical majority, if the minority has stronger arguments as weighed through the lens of our policies and guidelines. See

WP:NOTAVOTE (saying this for Aaron's understanding more than for yours, obviously). — JFG ^talk

08:25, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

The body of PAGs is so rich, vague, and self-contradictory that an experienced editor can usually construct a pseudo-policy argument for anything they want to support or oppose. Usually, then, it's not a majority consisting of

WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT, and argument-free votes, but rather a majority consisting of weak pseudo-policy arguments. I don't see many closers prepared to make the huge time-and-energy commitments required to sort all that, close against the majority, and defend their close on review. It's immeasurably easier and safer to close with the majority. Challenge: Show me three cases in the past year where a close has gone against a majority that had the superficial appearance of policy basis, but was weaker than the minority when one dug deeper. Over the years I've offered this challenge several times in different venues, and I've yet to have anybody take it. ―Mandruss ☎

09:49, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I think Mandruss has it right. Yes, our policy is

WP:NOTAVOTE. But in my experience the weight of arguments usually comes into play only when there is not a clear majority either way, or when many of the majority votes are obviously phony (meatpuppetry for example) or unaccompanied by any rationale. I can't offhand recall a case where weight of arguments overcame a clear majority. And if it did, it always wound up challenged. I'm not saying this as my own philosophy (it isn't), but as what I observe is the actual practice here. -- MelanieN (talk

) 14:44, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

It does not happen often but it happens, (and should), and yes, many decisions like that are challenged (and many challenges are lost). ^{There are others I would rather have used as an example (this one is 4 yrs ago) but it would take too much time to hunt them down.} There are also closes that are based on an iVote count and not the rationale, and some of them are challenged as well. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:04, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Not in the last year, but here's an interesting one I closed in favor of a minority with stronger arguments:

Talk:Queen Anne of Romania#Requested move 1 August 2016. Decision was upheld at the following move review, which makes for interesting reading if you're into discussions about process and weighing arguments in the face of contradictory guidelines. — JFG ^talk

21:45, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Courtesy ping Aarontaksingmak. You did a splendid job there, in my opinion. (Not just because I'm flattered by your quoting me at length.) — JFG ^talk 08:27, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

+1 ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:22, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Agree, it's always interesting to read someone who makes an effort to "get it", like Omer Benjakob. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:24, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I love how Katherine Maher describes talk pages as "the newsroom behind any Wikipedia article." It rather puts our petty squabbling into a new, flattering light, does it not? -- Scjessey (talk) 10:53, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, and quite inaccurately. But that's PR. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:04, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

[1] I had nothing to do with Russia helping me to get elected - remember guys, the crimes were all on the other side! starship.paint (talk) 14:33, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah he said it. Shortly after he said the opposite. Meaningless. O3000 (talk) 14:46, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Freudian slips aren't legally binding. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:15, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

This edit request to Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

When asked for one or two of his most favorite Bible verses, Trump said, "I wouldn't want to get into it, because to me that's very personal. You know, when I talk about the Bible it's very personal so I don't want to get into verses. The Bible means a lot to me but I don't want to get into specifics."[2] Tsugekumene (talk) 00:29, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

•  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Also, this is trivia compared to the rest of the article. O3000 (talk) 00:31, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

This is not trivial...trump was supposedly elected by the moral majority yet he seems to know nothing of Christianity which is absurd as he professes to be Christian and even belongs to a church..why are my edit request being removed? Who is doing it?2600:1702:2340:9470:A51C:48F8:683:9AE0 (talk) 22:39, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

It's still here. You are not following instructions. O3000 (talk) 22:41, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I don`t speak legalize..where are my comments ? What instructions ? 2600:1702:2340:9470:94FD:17E0:C40B:CDF1 (talk) 03:19, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I don`t speak legalize - Did you mean

WP:SOAPBOX. Learn to use the page history.

What instructions ? - Look at O3000's previous comment. Do you see anything there that O3000 might be calling "instructions"? I do.

If any experienced editor cares to close, archive, or remove this thread as unconstructive, I'll support that. ―Mandruss ☎

04:34, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

In the OP's defense, I would acknowledge that the process to add information when you are not an experienced editor looks complex - Perhaps. O3000's initial reply was not BITEy. They simply reiterated the instructions clearly stated—twice, in case it was missed the first time—in the edit request path. Only after the IP editor had ignored that, and then responded to O3000's exhortation to the read the instructions with What instructions?, did it become a little BITEy. I am more than prepared to be patient with an inexperienced user who shows they have made the slightest effort to use processes the way they were designed to be used. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:06, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: I searched the talk page archives for "bible" and found no mention of this quote. starship.paint (talk) 09:43, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes I meant legalese..I do not wish to edit Wikipedia articles..I`m not going to spend time learning the intricacies of the Wikipedia..there`s no point to it..that doesn't mean my opinion doesn't count..trump has contradicted himself with regard to religion which should be in the article..someone without a political agenda should write it.2600:1702:2340:9470:7D8B:45AA:7928:FCE9 (talk) 19:51, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Politicians exaggerating their connection to various groups, whether religious or otherwise, is so common it’s difficult to view it as anything but trivia. If we had a bunch of

WP:DUE for inclusion. Thus far, the religious right seems to be sticking by him. Not our job to argue with them. O3000 (talk

) 20:11, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: You recently did a major addition to the section here about the Mueller report. I agree that what we had in the Investigations section was deficient. It had too much information about the Barr letter and nothing at all about the actual Mueller report. We did need to trim the Barr information and we desperately needed a summary of the actual report. So thank you for that. You did trim most of the quotes from the Barr paragraph, that’s good; but you trimmed everything Barr said, not good. I have redone that paragraph, combining some of the previous version with some of what you added. Also I didn't see a reference for the legal experts criticizing Barr's letter so I left that out. For the rest of your rewrite, you added way, way too much detail about the actual Mueller report - three large paragraphs with all the details and FORTY references - more than 15,000 bytes. Those three paragraphs need a severe haircut. I don’t have time to do that today but I invite you or others to trim some of the detail. IMO we should wind up keeping about a third of what you added, summarizing the report’s conclusions rather than giving extensive quotes and explanations. Leave out the elaborate explanations of why Mueller felt he couldn’t charge Trump (three sentences in one paragraph, plus a redundant sentence in the next paragraph). Leave out what Barr said that was different from what Mueller said. We have all those things in other linked articles - in fact I think a lot of this material was copied from those articles, correct? Let's trim that down to something more appropriate. This is a biography and should have only the essentials. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:52, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

User:MelanieN Note my prior comment — to instead cut those paras entirely and get this down to three paragraphs. Just keep the wikilink, the intro paragraph, the para about March 22 it concluded, and the final para of Mueller remarks. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:26, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

MelanieN, What's wrong with 40 references? A lot of the material was taken from the summaries of other articles, or they were already a summary in that article. starship.paint (talk) 23:46, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I've trimmed the article on the Mueller Report part. After my trim (I see you didn't touch it), it went from 631 to 253 words. Obviously, I feel this is enough, from 100%, I've cut it to 39%, that's close enough to a third for me. Perhaps it should be other material in the section that should be trimmed - Markbassett mentioned that above. I feel that the results of the investigation are the most important. starship.paint (talk) 00:29, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Starship. That's a big improvement; No, I didn't touch it; I was out of town all weekend. That's why I suggested that others might take a stab at it. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:13, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I've done a little additional trimming - mainly removing excess references per

WP:OVERCITE and doing a trim/minor rewrite of the hush money section. -- MelanieN (talk

) 21:49, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

According to some analysts, the escalating

trade war with China could impact $2 trillion in global trade. Analysis conducted by Deutsche Bank

estimated that Trump's trade actions had resulted in foregone American stock market capitalization of $5 trillion through May 2019.

as it seems mighty speculative. I'm sure there is "truth" in the predicted directions of change. But, I don't think we should publish numbers so difficult to predict. We can wait and see what happens. O3000 (talk) 18:16, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I wonder what that was doing in this top-level biography. But there's a lot of stuff like that, so we can't oppose it on that basis. Or so the reasoning goes. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:05, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Good catch - I agree. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:05, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I have noticed for some time that this section has been almost irresponsibly underdeveloped save for William Barr's summary which has been under scrutiny for quite some time. I would like to propose that Mueller's recent statements, particularly his statement about "We conducted that investigation, and we kept the office of the Acting Attorney General apprised of the progress of our work. As set forth in our report, after that investigation, if we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that." as well as his statements specifying that the Special Council did not charge Trump because "Under a long-standing Department of Justice policy, “a President cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view—that, too, is prohibited. The special counsel’s office is part of the Department of Justice, and, by regulation, it was bound by that department policy. Charging the President with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider.” should be added under the basis that this is a more accurate summary of the Mueller Report and due to it being a statement from Mr. Mueller himself - it should be added, as Barr's summary doesn't paint a clear picture of what the report says has been under scrutiny for misrepresenting the Special Council's findings. --50.69.20.91 (talk) 16:09, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the problem but I disagree with the proposed solution. The problem is that the "Special Counsel investigation" draws too heavily on unreliable statements by Barr. We only did this at the time because, before the Mueller Report was released, Barr's statements were all we had. Now we know that Barr's statements haven't been fully consistent with the reliable sources. Instead of adding Mueller's statements to Barr's statements, the appropriate solution is to re-write our description of the Mueller Report in our own voice, drawing on what independent secondary sources have said about it.

R2 (bleep

) 17:18, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I can agree with that. The quotes don't need to be directly posted but there has been way too much information released about the report to keep this section as small (and outdated) as it is. --50.69.20.91 (talk) 21:53, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

@

Ahrtoodeetoo and 50.69.20.91: - done. check it out. starship.paint (talk

) 03:31, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: - Tech note, you can't ping an IP, the software requires an account on the receiving end. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:55, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks Mandruss. starship.paint (talk) 05:36, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

@Mandruss: - I think I fixed all the missing refs regarding the Mueller Report. starship.paint (talk) 06:09, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

• Barrs letter (not a summary) seems accurately portrayed. I’ll recommend instead this part of 6.6 Investigations being far too long should be trimmed to just a link to the Special Counsel article, keep para 1 the start/overview, keep para 4 the March 22 concluded, and keep para 9 as Muellers summation. Cut a lot else as non-BLP and detail which is better written in the other article. Cut the para 2 NYT Editorial, cut para 3 desire for interview as a non-happening, cut para 5 what’s in Mueller vol1 as details, cut para 6 Mueller vol 2 details, cut para 7 Barr/Mueller on obstruction rules, cut para 8 Trump reaction one-liner as OFFTOPIC of the investigations of Trump. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:08, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Mark. In para 2, I don’t find a NYT editorial, just two news stories and an analysis/fact check. I would be OK with deleting all of para 3 as news-of-the-day but I’d like input from more people first. I would absolutely keep the details in para 5 and 6, they are important to his biography. I’m not finding Barr/Mueller in para 7, maybe deleted already? I agree with removing the final paragraph (8); it is off topic to the subject of the subsection, which is “Special Counsel investigation, and I will remove it. If the "investigate the investigators" drive turns into an actual investigation, notable on its own and with reportable findings, a new section could be added on it then. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:32, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Oops, I can't remove paragraph 8 right now per 1RR. Later, or someone else can. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:36, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I previously tried to look at what Mark was saying but the paragraphs didn’t match. starship.paint (talk) 00:32, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

User:MelanieN Things there moved&changed a bit since 31 May, so here goes again.... I suggest reduce the section to a 3 paragraph SUMMARY similar to the others parts of the section, particularly as there is a separate article to point at where things are in more detail and better conveyed. (And seems really not biographical if Russia is part 1 or part 2.). So I was suggesting keeping only  : wikilink to the investigation article, para 1 (“On May 17, 2017”...) intro start and describing the investigation scope, para 4 (“On March 22, 2019”...) it concluded, and the para 9 two lines line (“Upon announcing”...) Mueller closing remark. Intentionally dropping paras that seemed side remarks as excess and the two longish paras trying to cover internal structure/basis as not going to be able to do that well in anything short so that’s the wikilink job. Just think better done as a 3 paragraph summary to identify the investigation and give a wikilink. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 12:18, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

For future reference, I believe Mark was commenting on this [3] version of the page. starship.paint (talk) 01:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I have removed the “investigate the investigators” paragraph (which was #8). I would also be OK with removing the entire paragraph about attempts to interview Trump (“Mueller attempted…”) as basically play-by-play news reporting. As I said before, I think we need to keep the three paragraphs summarizing Barr’s letter and the Mueller report. Personally I would delete the final paragraph (“Upon announcing…”) where Mueller repeats his conclusions, as redundant. Basically this investigation has been a continuing theme through his presidency and an obsession of Trump for the past two years; I think it is important - yes, even for this biography - to convey what the investigation concluded. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:54, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Disagree with Markbassett on removing paragraphs 6 and 7, especially 7, we had one whole volume (182 pages) on Donald Trump's possible obstruction, we're not going to cut that out, it's a significant part of his life now. Several have said that Barr principal conclusions were misleading, and I agree with that, so I cannot endorse a mere paragraph 4. I endorse MelanieN's comment, and have trimmed paragraph 3 and the (former para 9, at the time of my edit para 8). starship.paint (talk) 01:52, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I have restructured the section of Special Counsel investigation. It has only 6 paragraphs now [4]. We've cut that section from 1,269 words (100%) to 699 words (55%). Perhaps we should look at the other sections like Associates. starship.paint (talk) 01:52, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

This edit was reverted:

Analysis conducted by CNBC in May 2019 found that Trump "enacted tariffs equivalent to one of the largest tax increases in decades," while Tax Foundation and Tax Policy Center analyses found the tariffs could wipe out the benefits of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 for many households.

After extensive discussion of the edit, plus two supplemental edits by me and MrX, consensus was reached that tariff information is relevant and DUE in the Trump BLP, and MrX restored part of the content. However, the original edit (above) that initiated this whole process may have fallen through the cracks during this extensive discussion, and there may be some question as to whether it was included in the reached consensus. Consequently I request a vote to explicitly restore the edit.

• Support — soibangla (talk) 18:54, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose More what-ifs and conjecture of mostly yet to be seen outcomes.--MONGO (talk) 07:34, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose There are many comparisons that could be made and no reason why these ones have weight. When combined with the income tax cuts, there is a net tax reduction, although the vast majority of Americans will see a net tax increase. I would just say that the tariffs are estimated to cost taxpayers $72 billion per year. TFD (talk) 09:58, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

  @The Four Deuces: - since you say There are many comparisons that could be made can you provide many examples in reliable sources providing different comparisons? starship.paint (talk) 11:42, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I do not have to to. You need to show that the comparison cited is significant. TFD (talk) 11:59, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support - My initial instinct was to say that this was too prognosticative and detailed, but after reading the sources (of which more are available), I think we need to include this for NPOV reasons because of how extensively we already cover the tax cut legislation in this article:

1. In the lead: "He enacted a tax cut package for individuals and businesses,"
2. "Trump had asserted that a policy of tax cuts and deregulation would result in 3% annualized GDP growth, and perhaps much higher,..."
3. Entire paragraph that begins "In December 2017, Trump signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017,..."

I know we are concerned about article length, so I suggest we look at condensing paragraphs 4, 5 and the first part of 6 under 'Economy and trade' to make room for the 50 words proposed.- MrX 🖋 12:06, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - none of the information regarding details of his presidency belong in his BLP - they belong in Presidency of Donald Trump, and from there, possibly into spin-off articles about specific (his most notable) policy decisions. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:07, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Accordingly, I look forward to your edits that will cut the article size in half. soibangla (talk) 18:59, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment – @Soibangla: If you mean this thread to be a RfC, you should add the required {{rfc}} tag, which will trigger the automated process and notifications. If you mean it just as a local informal survey, then please remove "RfC:" from the thread title. — JFG ^talk 19:31, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

  I've removed "RfC:" from the heading. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:41, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't know how to use that tag. I'd appreciate if you could add it so I can see what it looks like and I will comply in the future. soibangla (talk) 22:00, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

@

WP:RFCBEFORE, an RfC would be premature at this juncture. ―Mandruss ☎

23:11, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - as said before, there is relatively minute WEIGHT for the particular item, it is SPECULATION, and really not biographical but more a Presidency line. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:58, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support - well supported by sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:26, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose – It's opinion, and it's the wrong article. Go to Economic policy of the Donald Trump administration, Trump tariffs and China–United States trade war. — JFG ^talk 11:51, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Here's another source saying the tariffs are a pretty huge tax hike which was passed on to Americans just about 100 percent. The same Slate journalist (now that we're all Slate fans) also reported that on top of that the tariffs didn't reduce the trade deficit. On the contrary, the trade deficit increased, hitting a 10-year high last December. (Aside to JFG and Atsme: Which is it, Economic policy of the Donald Trump administration or Presidency of Donald Trump? How about Foreign policy? What exactly are the criteria for including or excluding things Trump has done as president from his BLP? A subject can be covered in more detail in a child article but it still should get mentioned here.) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:46, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

In response to your question,

WP:VNOTSUFF or NPOV. ^Atsme _Talk 📧

16:25, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

...the repurcussions will not be unlike what happened with MSM's embarrassing 2016 election predictions and relentless allegations of Russian-collusion. What MSM relentless allegations of Russian-collusion? Would you stop pushing this alt-right nonsense? It’s disruptive and not even relevant to this section except in the minds of relentless media-bashers. Stay on topic. O3000 (talk) 17:12, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

MSM's embarrassing 2016 election predictions The press reported on what was the nearly universal belief, as consistently reflected in polls and betting markets, right up to and including Election Day — and by Trump himself even as election returns were coming in — that he would lose. soibangla (talk) 17:39, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

O3000 & Soibangla - is it necessary for both of you to team-up and push your own POV in opposition to my factual response to a question I was asked by another editor? O3000 you need to stop casting aspersions against me - it is extremely annoying, particularly your relentless gaslighting, PAs and false accusations of disruption, the latter of which is actually considered disruption. Stop baiting me, launching PAs, gaslighting and casting aspersions and please, for WP's sake, focus on productive contributions. I've made note of these diffs and the fact that many RS/journalists have already admitted their errors, none of which are alt-right as you claimed. Matt Taibbi certainly isn't alt-right, and The New Yorker isn't alt-right but do we not expect TNY to respond defensively? The Intercept certainly is not alt-right, WSJ isn't alt-right, and on and on. To deny the media got the 2016 election wrong goes beyond ridiculous - Vox states: "Most scholars and commentators these days are overly cautious about venturing predictions. It’s understandable: After so many got so much wrong in 2016, the natural response is to step back and “get out of the prediction business.” Facts only, please. Our own policies tell us to exercise caution and to use in-text attribution as applicable. Facts are facts - they are not right, left, alt-right, alt-left, progressive or whatever. They are facts and they speak for themselves - I'm simply reciting those facts. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:03, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

There was no team-up and I did not express a POV. soibangla (talk) 20:14, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Atsme, you can't make yourself immune to criticism on this page, none of us can. You can disagree with it, but you can't ascribe bad faith without evidence. Your "team-up" is called multiple editors in agreement in opposition to your position in the same discussion. That's what we do here. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:34, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Uhm, Mandruss, neither can you or anyone else. I'm well aware of what we do here after nearly a decade of editing WP, and participating at NPP, AfC, GA/FA reviews, etc. You are certainly entitled to express your opinion, but you are not entitled to make-up your own facts or cast aspersions. I provided supporting evidence for everything I've said. What you are doing now is adding to the piles. I will gladly take the high road and end the PAs against me here and now but will add that Soibangla was kind enough to present his POV neutrally and I thanked him respectfully. You and O3000 should follow suit, and we'll all be further ahead as collaborators. I've been the recipient of more than my share of mud, so I'll bid you good day and happy editing. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:02, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Your reference to the USA Today article didn't really answer my question about the criteria for including or excluding material from this article, especially since you seem to have stopped reading after the first paragraph. As for the rest of your post, let's just say we disagree on many things and leave it at that. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:20, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support 2600:1702:2340:9470:D968:91F2:DF40:9D92 (talk) 16:16, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • - Note:
    no other edits outside iVotes in this article. ^Atsme _Talk 📧
    17:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

MONGO reverted this edit because "stocks are higher than ever...unemployment is lower than in last 50 years," despite the facts that:

• The Obama market outperformed the Trump market, reaching all-time record highs 103 times between March 5, 2013 and election day 2016 (I have that data on a spreadsheet somewhere, if anyone would like to see it)

• The unemployment rate had been declining steadily for seven years before Trump was elected, contrary to efforts by some to make it seem that Trump became president and flipped a magic switch to cause unemployment to suddenly drop.

• And anyway, the edit contains eight cites from a reliable source showing that Trump's assertions are false. And that's what we rely on here: reliable sources.

I recommend the edit be restored. soibangla (talk) 18:23, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Both Trump's declarations, MONGO's assertion and Soibangla's sources are opinion about the health of the economy and the respective attribution to the Obama or Trump presidencies. The economy is always good or bad, best or worst, by some measure. Best leave all opinion out. — JFG ^talk 19:46, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

There isn't even a definition of "best economy" as it would have to include the how likely a recession will occur and how resiliently it will perform once the inevitable recession does. Which is only a comment, not an argument for or against inclusion. O3000 (talk) 19:50, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

This is not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of a RS reporting the assertions as false — eight times. But anyway, by every metric a reasonable person can name — GDP, job creation, wage growth, earnings growth, stock market, unemployment rate, labor participation, you name it — we are most certainly not in the best economy in American history, not by a long shot. "By just about any important measure, the economy today is not doing as well as it did under Presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower, Lyndon B. Johnson and Bill Clinton — and Ulysses S. Grant" soibangla (talk) 22:22, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia policy, report what reliable sources say, subject to WEIGHT. If MONGO wishes to include a different viewpoint with sufficient sourcing, he is free to do so. Leave personal political analysis out of it; that is not our job. That said, it did seem odd to me that all eight cites were from AP. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:06, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I reported what RS said, MONGO cited specific metrics that are easily debunked. I can produce other reliable sources if desired, but I figured that AP is considered perhaps the most anodyne source that is rarely if ever challenged as "fake news." soibangla (talk) 22:13, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Based on what you've said, I'm curious to know if editors think MONGO reverted because he should — or because he could. soibangla (talk) 22:47, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't know that it matters what we think about that.

Maybe I haven't been clear: Your content is a fair reflection of adequate sourcing per WEIGHT, and should therefore remain in. MONGO is free to add an alternative viewpoint if he can produce adequate sourcing per WEIGHT. Then we can discuss to what extent it's appropriate to use wiki voice. To date, MONGO hasn't produced anything but his own view of the political situation. Nor has anybody else in this thread, except you. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:59, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

his own view of the political situation is not sufficient grounds to revert and force another editor into WP:ONUS. If I'm not mistaken, you recently called into question whether MONGO should be permitted to edit American politics articles. soibangla (talk) 23:15, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I think I once said that I would support a topic ban if MONGO were taken to AE. He has not been taken to AE, and this is not the place to discuss such things (I said that on a user talk page, not in article talk).

As I understand the process, pretty much anything is sufficient grounds for a revert that doesn't violate the explicit rules, and an editor who repeatedly abuses that freedom should be taken to AE. I also understand that the system is messy, inconsistent, and unreliable, the natural and inevitable result of self-selected self-governance. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:27, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Soibangla - find other sources to mix it up (I’m sure WaPo cited best economy as one of Trump’s most repeated falsehoods) and I’ll add it back as DUE material. starship.paint (talk) 22:57, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

"President Trump’s repeated claim: 'The greatest economy in the history of our country’" soibangla (talk) 23:06, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Soibangla. Now, if you could find even more of other sources, or at least find other reliable sources citing AP, then I think you would strengthen your claim on DUE weight, due to a range of sources rather than only two at the moment. starship.paint (talk) 23:33, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Will three do? Trump Says the U.S. Economy Is the ‘Greatest’ Ever. It’s Not soibangla (talk) 23:42, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Eight will, and it's done, Soibangla. I've reinserted the material [5] after I found five more sources (Yahoo, LA Times, Stuff, Newsweek, CNBC) to go along with AP, WaPo and Bloomberg. starship.paint (talk) 00:58, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Do we really need to report - in this already-huge biography - every time he makes one of these ridiculous claims? This is "the greatest economy in history". He's had "the most successful first two years of any president in history". He signed "the biggest tax cut in history". He had "the largest inaugural crowd in history". He won "perhaps the greatest election of all time". He is "the healthiest individual ever to assume the presidency". IMO we shouldn't clutter up his biography with these things. Put them in the Presidency of Donald Trump article, or the Economic policy article. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:21, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Agree that it belongs in a sub-article. Besides, I won the greatest election of all time when I was unanimously voted most handsome man in my apartment. O3000 (talk) 00:29, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

We'll put it in your article. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:33, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Citation needed. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Where's the subpoena? O3000 (talk) 01:01, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Would we put it in this article had he actually had the best economy? I'm sure we would, that's an extremely significant achievement, even if it was that he just didn't bungle up what Obama started. By that metric, we should also put in this article that he has repeatedly lied about having the best economy. starship.paint (talk) 01:05, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I've reinserted the material [6] after I found five more sources (Yahoo, LA Times, Stuff, Newsweek, CNBC) to go along with AP, WaPo and Bloomberg. Mandruss - this will appease your caution on the over-reliance on AP. starship.paint (talk) 00:58, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

See the NYTimes article which was cited by IBD. A few others include Hill, and CNBC. The simple facts (not opinions): "GDP growth in the first nine quarters of the Trump presidency has averaged 2.77%—versus 2.3% over the 16 quarters of Barack Obama's" and so on. An interesting note - the May 10th article in The Nation. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 03:07, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Not really pertinent to the question at hand. Find us eight reliable sources that say this is the best economy in American history, and we can talk. That's what Trump has been saying over and over. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:19, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Atsme - your NYT article is from Aug. 6, 2016 before Trump was ever president. Which of your sources argue that this is the best economy in history - as is the title of this section? starship.paint (talk) 03:32, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

• JUST THE FACTS PLEASE - somehow instead of being about economy facts and mentioning major news items the record low unemployment, the record stock market, the record GDP level and continuing 10 years of growth .... this is casting things into the gossip channel and telling about critics nit-picking over hyperbole. If it’s not all deleted as non-biographical, need some perspective here, and observance of WEIGHT. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:49, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

  FACT - Trump has repeatedly called his economy the best ever. FACT - reliable sources disagree that it is the best ever. Would you like to provide reliable sources on how the GDP and stocks are at their highest level ever, and that unemployment is at its lowest level ever? starship.paint (talk) 04:03, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

• Please stick to ECONOMIC facts, as well as perspective and WEIGHT. Critics nit-picking speeches are not big WEIGHT compared to the missing economic stories, and not deserving of lead position. Markbassett (talk) 04:24, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

• Found a source saying [7] the unemployment rate was as low as 2.5 percent in 1953 ... The GDP is the broadest measure of the economy ... In 1950 and 1951, it was 8.7 and 8 percent, respectively. Does Trump beat that? Found a source [8] quoting Trump's claim for the record stock market, it says We’ll also note that it’s unclear how valuable the stock market is as a gauge of the country’s economic health. Not every American is invested, so it’s probably not the most important economic metric. starship.paint (talk) 04:14, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

" In 1950 and 1951, it was 8.7 and 8 percent" - careful, you're talking about GDP growth, not actual GDP.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:29, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

• Irrelevant to this discussion. Nobody has to "prove" anything except what RS says – specifically about strongest economy in U.S. history, not individual cherry-picked metrics. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:17, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

  User:Starship.paint OK, so let’s talk the RS phrasing on that then ... it would be something like “In the second year of President Trump’s term, unemployment declined to historic low levels unprecedented in modern history or 70-year low in national unemployment; and lowest unemployment ever measured for blacks, 19 states, and certain labor categories.” Obviously many sites, highly significant, and major WEIGHT. How about I post it phrased like that ? Markbassett (talk) 04:42, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

  Markbassett - Unprecedented ... modern - not okay, misleading, vague. 70-year low - okay. 19 states, labor categories - list them, vague otherwise. Assuming you have the sources. I seem to remember the blacks unemployment being (jointly?) attributed to Obama - will add if sources say so. starship.paint (talk) 05:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

  DONE - "By late 2018 and early 2019, the national average unemployment continued to decline to lows not seen since 1969,[5][6][7][8] with occasional record lows set for 19 states[9][10], and in racial measures for blacks, hispanics, and asian-americans.[11]" I used cites to whitehouse.gov, bbc.com, fortune.com, pbs.org; bloomberg.com, bls.gov; and NBCnews.com. Others of course available, but these seemed major sources of diverse types in the financial arena. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:28, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

• Ok, Sgt. Friday. Fact 1: Trump has repeatedly said this is the strongest economy in U.S. history. Fact 2: We have 8 reliable sources that say that is not true. Which fact do you dispute?

  As for WEIGHT, I think it's time you learned what that means.

  WP:WEIGHT speaks of "the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources" – not about our personal opinions about the relative importance of those viewpoints. There is nothing in WEIGHT or any policy that says we can choose to ignore anything said in RS in sufficient quantity. We routinely include things with considerably less than eight independent sources, so you have no WEIGHT basis to oppose this content. ―Mandruss ☎

  04:10, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

  Well aware of what WEIGHT means and that is not the rationale for my revert. I feel such additions belong in daughter's articles not in the mainline BLP. My edit summary is accurate however, as stocks are at the highest point and unemployment is at a 50 year low [9], [10]. Whether this happened due to Obama or Trump policies isn't the point as they happened during Trumps administration. I notice Soibangla did add this same material elsewhere as they did here and here, and, believe it or not also here, yet I did not remove it from those articles. Why is this same material in 4 different articles? ...why do we have daughter articles if the same material is going to be found in every related article? It defeats the purpose of having spinoffs.--MONGO (talk) 04:19, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

By stock market, I assume you mean the Dow. The Dows only measures 30 of the 28 million businesses in the US. And, companies among those 30 that fall on hard times are replaced by companies that are performing better, like GE last year. And the stock prices of these companies can be improved with stock buybacks, which are now quite common due to repatriated foreign cash. This is a poor measure of the economy. O3000 (talk) 16:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

@MONGO and Objective3000: - stock market highs are not uncommon. [11] Yahoo! Finance analysed the presidents since 1980, and every one of them had record stock market highs. Bushes had under 50, Obama and Reagan had over 100, Clinton had over 200. The source further says: It’s a bit silly to gauge a president’s mettle by the number of stock-market highs, since the stock market consistently hits new highs as the economy grows. “In a rising market, you will see new highs on a regular basis,” Brad McMillan of Commonwealth Financial Network wrote to clients on April 24 starship.paint (talk) 00:39, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT being all viewpoints in proportion to their prominence, the views on the state of the U.S. economy are in 170 Million cites ... the eight about nit-picking a Trump speech just are not DUE any mention. Cheers Markbassett (talk

) 02:46, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Excellent, let's remove everything with eight cites or less from this article, given that there are 1 billion Google hits for Donald Trump, eight is surely nitpicking. To even be a significant minority viewpoint, I propose a percentage of 5 %, so we need about 50 million cites per sentence. starship.paint (talk) 00:31, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

• FACT: the first cited source (Yahoo News) used for the restored material states: As is often the case, President Trump is half-right. We say what the RS say. The material that was restored doesn't say he was half-right, nor does it mention anything about him being right about anything. It's all criticism and speculation which is noncompliant with NPOV because half the information that belongs has been omitted. Further, much of the material that was restored is UNDUE because there is no way to determine what the tariffs (global trade) will do until his term is over. Trump has only completed a little more than half of his term. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 04:27, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

  Atsme - have you read beyond the first line of that Yahoo! Finance article [12]? The fourth and fifth lines say But he’s going way overboard when he insists that, “in many ways this is the greatest economy in the history of America.” It’s not, and the reasons why matter—because they might be the rumblings of the next recession. Come on. I'm truly astonished. Further down, Our current grade on the Trumponomics report card is a solid B. Since Trump is claiming historical superiority, we’ll tell you exactly where he stands ... 3rd ... second ... third ... third ... third ... third - starship.paint (talk) 04:35, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

  ?.. “in many ways this is the greatest economy” seems a modest claim that is factually true, “many” meaning you could come up with 5 or 6. (That there are also many ways it isn’t the greatest can also be true, same reason). Markbassett (talk) 05:13, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

  So Yahoo! Finance says It’s not, and you, citing nothing, says it is. starship.paint (talk) 05:37, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

  ??? Don’t be silly. You know perfectly well major items like this millions of cites, far greater WEIGHT than the speech nit-picking. The stock market records are repeatedly in WSJ, Barron’s, CNBC, Yahoo, etcetera many others, for each of the dozens of times it hit a new high. That unemployment is the lowest ever measured for blacks, Latinos, and Asian Americans is similarly BLS.gov covered by AP, Bloomberg, CBS, CNBC, CNN, .... Cites would be with the edit, picking a couple BESTSOURCES may be hard only because with so many highly authoritative and large it’s a tough call. Markbassett (talk) 15:17, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

  @Markbassett: - stock market highs are not uncommon, they are in fact, very regular given a growing economy. [13] Yahoo! Finance analysed the presidents since 1980, and every single one of them had record stock market highs. Bushes had under 50, Obama and Reagan had over 100, Clinton had over 200. The source further says: It’s a bit silly to gauge a president’s mettle by the number of stock-market highs, since the stock market consistently hits new highs as the economy grows. “In a rising market, you will see new highs on a regular basis,” Brad McMillan of Commonwealth Financial Network wrote to clients on April 24 starship.paint (talk) 00:44, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

  Did these UE rates suddenly decline when Trump became president? soibangla (talk) 18:28, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

  User:Starship.paint Yes, stock market is one of the “in many ways this is the best economy in history”. Thank you for the article which says ‘Trump has had more record highs in his first 2 years than any other’, with a whopping 37% increase in the first year from Election - called the Trump stock market rally. Yes, before this record high others had record highs, such is the nature of records. At the moment Trump likes touting that the economy is great, speech critics nit-pick about that, and WP for BLP should JUST REPORT THE FACTS PLEASE, and not report just the gossipy or the spinning. Are you proposing to put in content about the market? As previously posted, I’ll maybe try to put up unemployment numbers, but am doing other things first, so go ahead and propose. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 12:29, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

  You can add that, and I'll add in the same source saying It’s a bit silly to gauge a president’s mettle by the number of stock-market highs, since the stock market consistently hits new highs as the economy grows. starship.paint (talk) 12:58, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

  S&P500 after 640 trading days since election days, through yesterday: Obama — up 32.6%, Trump — up 30.1%. After 591 trading days since inauguration days: Obama — up 63.5%, Trump — up 22.5%. Google spreadsheet upon request. soibangla (talk) 17:46, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

• ^^^^That. But even if you were correct: Per WEIGHT, I don't think we're going to include content saying that one of the 8 sources says Trump has been only half-lying. We stick to prominence in RS and leave other reasoning out of it. We don't look at what one source says and argue that it says something equally important to seven that don't say that. That judgment is not ours to make. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:39, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

• Per BALANCE/NPOV we include all relevant views, and we don't use only those RS that support the same view when there are other RS that support a different view. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 04:49, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

  Please make visible these RS that support a different view (that Trump’s economy is the best in history). I don’t see any. starship.paint (talk) 04:51, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

  Did you really restore this within the minimal 24 hour discussion period? The wording in the banner is a bit vague so I am unclear if it means no one can restore it, or only the original editor cannot do so. Please correct me if I am mistaken and I do see you added further references...nevertheless, what is the rush, especially since we have I believe 5 editors who oppose it even being here and only three supporting it so far. I see MelanieN also thought it should be in another article, yet did move it to a different location in the section.--MONGO (talk) 05:46, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

  Banner says "one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period". If I violated 1RR, let me know so I can correct it. Banner said If an edit you make is challenged by reversion. The original edit wasn't by me, and I've added different sources anyway, so it's not a wholesale revert. If this needs to be an RfC, let us know. starship.paint (talk) 07:25, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

  Do you think there is as yet a consensus for the restoration as I don't yet see it. I think without one re-adding it even with more cites makes this an issue deserving an Rfc.--MONGO (talk) 07:56, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I support it. Who are the five that supposedly oppose it? Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:54, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Myself, Atsme, 0300, MelanieN and Markbassett, the latter two, MelanieN ended up moving it after starship.paint restored it and markbassett may not possibly one way or the other as they have not made it clear, but seems to be arguing against it. Why is this material in 4 different articles, all added by Soibangla with this one added last? If it already appeared elsewhere, all added the same day, why is it parroted here too.--MONGO (talk) 06:10, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

So if something appears on other articles it can't appear here? Perhaps it simply deserves to be on all these articles. If any president had his country's best economy ever, I would support the material on their personal page. If any president repeatedly boasted about having his country's best economy ever and were rebuked by many reliable sources, I would also support that material on their personal page. starship.paint (talk) 07:25, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Makes little sense to be parroting the same material on multiple articles that are spinoffs to keep related material together. This is the reason we have daughter articles. A review of

summary style might help.--MONGO (talk

) 07:56, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Cool, so this article should not include anything that's in one of the sub-articles. I'm for that, so when do we start gutting this article and reducing it to about 40% of its current size? I mean, either we do that or your argument falls flat on its face, which is it? ―Mandruss ☎ 08:07, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

A. Not what I said. B. Follow summary style. This article as MelanieN already stated is bloated. Its bloated by constant coatracking and it is bloated at 430k kilobytes...we keep posting material at 3,4,5 different articles that is all the same we might as well redirect all of those back here and just have one 2 million KB mess.--MONGO (talk) 08:44, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

On this list here this article is the 38th longest on the pedia. I do recognize however that this one has a lot of bytes dedicated to referencing.--MONGO (talk) 08:55, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I have long argued that the article should not include anything that will not belong here in about 20 years. Not only does that result in severe bloat, but it helps make the article a political battleground. Most editors on both ends of the spectrum—whether they admit it or not—whether they realize it or not—advocate or oppose content here on the basis of how it might affect public opinion, and particularly the 2020 election.

I have warned about the slippery slope that results from the absence of a bright line rule backed by consensus, and I have been advised not to worry about it. So I haven't worried about it much (out loud), and this is the result. My point is that the problem is far larger than one sentence, and we can't address it one proposed new sentence at a time. As long as the article includes anything of this nature, there is no bloat rationale for omitting one more instance of it. Just curious, how many times have you made a bloat argument against Trump-favorable content? ―Mandruss ☎ 09:11, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Show me a clear consensus this material belongs in the article without resulting to specious comments and inquires about ones intent. An Rfc would do.--MONGO (talk) 15:21, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Why are we discussing the Economic history of the United States in this article? We have a specific article for such data. And Trump is simply using hyperbole to gain some political support, he is not comparing financial data to compare the current economy with that of any other presidential administration since 1789. Dimadick (talk) 08:16, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

We are not discussing the Economic history of the United States; rather, those who are shouldn't be, since that is not what the disputed content is about. Instead, we are discussing the article's subject individual making repeated claims about the economic history of the United States that, according to a sufficient number of reliable sources, are false. And it is not our job to second-guess reliable sources, debating things like hyperbole to gain some political support, but rather to report what they say, provided they say it in sufficient numbers. That's what Wikipedia policy says. The numbers are more than sufficient, or a good 20% of the article needs to go. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:24, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm counting 15,000+ words that have main articles elsewhere. The article without footnotes and references is less than 18,000 words. Cutting everything with main articles elsewhere wouldn't even leave you with 20%. Here's the remaining sections with a total of around 2,000 words: Early life and education, Religion, Conflicts of interest (business), Professional wrestling, The Apprentice, Radio and television commentary, Political activities up to 2015, 2012 presidential speculation, 2013–2015 (political career) and 2019 House investigation. starship.paint (talk) 08:51, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Getting rid of about 80% of current content sounds about right, though I’d have guessed 50% for where one gets by looking at the easily questionable - anything not biographical, or not a major news item more than a 1-week wonder, gossip quotefarms, excessively wordy phrasing’s... all the bloat with trivia or detail stuff already covered elsewhere. It might work best to set some minimum guidelines for what can stay, and then it would be both a cutting guide and a filter against rebloating. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:33, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with a whole bunch of editors here that this material shouldn't be included in this article. Every time Trump says something false or outlandish, the media jump, not because of the subject matter but because fact checking is their job. Fact checking is not our job because
  R2 (bleep
  ) 19:28, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

  Every time Trump says something false or outlandish, the media jump, not because of the subject matter but because fact checking is their job. - not really, he’s said this over 134 times and this is his 4th most repeated falsehood (per WaPo source here) and the media doesn’t jump every time. Furthermore, it is a big lie, because if it were actually true and reliable sources said Trump had the best economy, we would include it in the article. starship.paint (talk) 23:39, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

  The economy is arguably the only thing keeping his approval rating above 30%. It's not inconsequential that he keeps repeating it's the best economy ever, many people blindly believe it. And not only isn't it the best economy ever, it isn't even the best economy since 2012. soibangla (talk) 00:12, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

  ? That actually offers evidence of Trump being right. It shows GDP this year being a record — more than Trump’s first year, which was more than the Obama’s best year, etcetera. “Best” GDP ever. And p.s. think that 42% approval is of his actions, and/or style... eh, tastes vary... because Quinnipiac poll says he’s not getting credit for the economy. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:06, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

It shows GDP this year being a record...more than the Obama’s best year No. It. Does. Not. soibangla (talk) 17:24, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

?? Just pointing out the mathematical fact. GDP Grew every year of Obama then grew for the 2 years after Obama = GDP now more than Obama ever had. GDP usually grows, that’s why it could be considered one of the “in many ways” this is the best U.S. economy in history. If you look for records that support the claim, you find some exist. That critics chose instead to seek ways it is not is also possible - that would not disprove the statement Trump made, it would only disprove if the claim had been “in ALL ways”. But again, WP should not be promoting here, it should just state the facts please. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 12:51, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I cannot begin to describe how many ways your "analysis" of GDP now more than Obama ever had is deeply flawed, so I won't even start. Just take a glance at this chart and tell me again why a record level of GDP is noteworthy. soibangla (talk) 17:28, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Soibangla ???? How are you seeing what’s shown there as a negative or as a suspect “analysis” and not simple mathematical fact? That source to me is an even clearer and very authoritative showing of what I said about the table of continuous positives “It shows this year GDP as being a record, higher than Trump’s first year, which was more than Obama’s best year, etcetera. “Best” GDP ever.” 18.9 trillion chart on right side is higher than 18.3 a year before, is higher than 17.8 the year before, etcetera. Look, you offered a weblink and said it showed Trump wrong ... but I pointed out it instead supports Trump... how are you feeling this doesn’t show highest GDP ever or that highest GDP would not be evidence towards Trump being right ???? Very puzzled be adamant ‘no it doesn’t’ and how/why you feel second source disproves that. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:53, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

►facepalm◄ soibangla (talk) 00:05, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Please stop adding your own

WP:OR. Why do you think GDP is the sole measurement of economy? Why do you think the highest GDP means anything about the state of the economy since it naturally grows over time, just as the population grows. Why would consider anything in the realm of economics “mathematical fact” when economists have so much disagreement? Where is the preponderance of reliable sources? O3000 (talk

) 00:06, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Soibangla you’re making no sense - it was you who put a link to chart of all-growing GDP as a Trump negative, I simply put up a “?” And said that actually it supports Trump ... Your vehement ‘no it does not’ and saying ‘GDP now higher than Obama ever had is wrong’ and giving me an even more obvious chart showing it IS now higher than Obama ever had just got even more ???? marks. Look, simple fact GDP is higher now than prior years, mathematically 18 is more than 17 - that’s not “analysis”, that’s not “OR”, accept that’s simple fact being shown by the cites you’re putting forward yet saying they somehow do not show this. I have no idea how you’re getting that backwards into up is down. I don’t absolutely need to — while very puzzled on how you’re not seeing this as up is up, or simple fact as simple fact, just note that claims that table or chart is negative got pushback and move along. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:57, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

There is no longer any way I can attempt to communicate with you without engaging in personal attacks about your competence and motives. Goodbye. soibangla (talk) 23:05, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I looked into this further and agree with you, Soibangla, in light of the fact that this isn't an isolated tweet but a pattern of tweets that, as a pattern, have received a lot of media attention. However, I believe that this sentence about Trump's false tweets shouldn't lead the paragraph. The paragraph should start with a summary of the economy under Trump and proceed to verifiable details. Trump's statements can come after that, clearly indicating that they're false, followed by a phrase or sentence about how some Americans are being misled (if reliably sourced, of course). And Markbassett, if you're going to disrupt discussions with falsehoods like that then there's a conduct problem. I urge you to provide some credible evidence, or strike your comment.

R2 (bleep

) 19:14, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

• Frankly speaking, Trump’s claim of the “best economy in history” is simply one more of his absurd exaggerations. By what measurement would you compare a current economy without knowing the future? And what does “current” even mean? Why don’t we just completely ignore it instead of arguing about how to measure the “best economy in history”. We can leave that to ivory tower economists, like theologians arguing about whether Jesus owned his own clothes or how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. O3000 (talk) 15:29, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
• I fail to see any relevance in that wall of text. There is no POV or judgment in the edit. The assertion that we are now in the best economy in history, which he has asserted 134 times per WaPo, is simply, flatly, patently false by overwhelming, objective factual evidence. soibangla (talk) 17:55, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

• That’s an incorrect portrayal of the WaPo opinion pieces - they all start with ‘while it is something to brag about’, which is missing in article text. And then the WaPo saying ‘not quite historic’ by a measure they then look at, got in the text exaggerated from an ‘not quite’ into an unambiguous “false”. If it was portrayed as WaPo said 134 time ‘not quite’ would be closer. A further problem here is it does not convey the viewpoint Trump or others was giving on that subject so does not meet NPOV, it only portrays the speech criticism. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 12:24, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Soibangla - I disagree with your revert [14]. Merely stating 4% doesn't tell us much, it's just a number. Having the lowest unemployment since 1969 is significant. Having record lows in almost 20 states is also significant (I would put in a note exactly which states). Same for the races. Markbassett has already attempted to discuss it above before inserting. starship.paint (talk) 04:22, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I support that reversion. The removed material was ostensibly about the US economy, not Trump. Written in that way, it effectively used Wikivoice to claim these economic successes are directly attributable to Trump policies, which is (a) unlikely, (b) impossible to prove, and (c) unsupported by the references. I am not necessarily opposed to the inclusion of those details, but I am opposed to the way it was written before the reversion. Perhaps the entire summary in that section should be looked at again and worked out here before putting it back in? -- Scjessey (talk) 11:11, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

So propose (or make) alternative phrasing. Simply stating the unemployment rate seemed simplest, in line with the preceding text and follows just showing the rate was done in Barack Obama. During the administration is what’s the general approach anyway - it may seem fair or not, but the norm is presidents get noted for what happens on their watch. The unemployment could be given as a chart like the Obama page, but that would not convey the WEIGHT of coverage is about ‘best since 1969’ and ‘some states and racial groups hitting record lows’. Any other thoughts ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 12:32, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

You do understand that "best since 1969" has nothing whatsoever to do with Trump or his policies, right? Literally anyone could've been POTUS and that "record" would've been hit at roughly the same time. One only has to look at a graph showing the unemployment rate since the Bush recession to see why. The WEIGHT of coverage is more about how Trump brags about these records, rather than the records themselves. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:45, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Scjessey No, it is pretty clear the WEIGHT of coverage on US unemployment is about the getting to historic lows or setting new records. Reviewing speeches by Trump about it is obviously a subset where just not many have that focus, and some of them agree or praise him.

• Raw Google is fairly overwhelming that about 90% of coverage on US unemployment record low is not mentioning Trump - Google "united states" unemployment record low gets 24.7 million hits but with Trump added hits 3.9 million. That google is a crude filter, and pulls in a lot of Obama or blogs, but as a rough take the results are overwhelming. (Perhaps partly because Unemployment lows are there to be mentioned every day, and Trump saying something about them is not every day.)
• Prominent business publications basically don't do speech critiques - articles there focus on what it means or why it happened, check out Bloomberg, TheEconomist, Forbes, [15], WSJ
• Covering the dozens of records set isn't national - new records get mentioned a lot in .gov and press for states, counties, racial groups, or labor categories such as construction and tech, not about the national level - Tennessee, San Francisco, Construction
• Generic national coverage also ~90% on the events, not the speeches - looking at Reuters USAToday
• Praises in the 10% mentioning Trump - and in the mix are publications like FoxNews and Breitbart for example.

So again, the coverage of Unemployment Hitting Record Lows is much more about it happening, business implications and why, and each individual record. WEIGHT for the Unemployment news is much higher than weight for criticisms about Trump speeches which mention it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markbassett (talk • contribs)

@Markbassett: You've made my point for me. The weight of the Trump coverage is about his bragging. The weight of the economical coverage barely mentions Trump. Ergo, there's little point in keeping the material in question. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:35, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Scjessey From my view, authoritative economy sources like The Economist are talking about “the Trump boom” and that Republicans (including Trump) have a glowing economy ... and there are no speech criticisms. So WEIGHT of Trump mentions in economy venue is basically positive. Of course, far more is simply reporting the economy as something highly noted during his term... since I posted that, obviously I think that is the most DUE by WEIGHT here. I could also see ‘just the biographical’, hence reasonably happy to have the whole section deleted ... but then it cannot be including speech criticisms that lack biographical content. I cannot see any valid argument for only a negative POV that is neither biographical nor highest WEIGHT by area nor by Trump-specific remarks. Seems like there are three valid choices here, either

• more goes in to satisfy NPOV of having all significant views in proportion to their weight; or
• only general market gets in as nothing else is of significant WEIGHT compared to that; or
• cut it AND speech criticism based on being non-biographical OFFTOPIC. RSVP, Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:29, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  I'll just say that Trump saying something can't be off-topic in this article. starship.paint (talk) 05:49, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

• Speech criticism however, especially when distorted by WP to exaggerate the cite, seems non-biographical since it is not about a significant decision in his life or event of his life. In large the criticism cites seen seem not about what he said or where or why or meant, but is their own “alternative facts”? These cites seem to just give a snippet and then go off into their own manufactured view of how that could be seen as wrong. e.g. dinging GDP growth when other sources on the same remarks say it was referring to unemployment rate. If their criticism had much WEIGHT or actual effect would be one thing, but here just seems UNDUE sidebar. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

It`s obvious Trump inherited a good economy and is taking credit. 2600:1702:2340:9470:D968:91F2:DF40:9D92 (talk) 16:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

“As some prominent psychiatrists have noted, [Trump’s mental health] is the elephant in the room. I think the public is really starting to catch on and widely talk about this now.” (The Independent, 2017)

It's high time that we do something about this article's most startling omission: Trump's personality and health. It's one of the most widely covered issues related to Trump over a period of several years and the subject of an extensive body of expert commentary the world over. Many sources are of very high quality. (Just a few examples: [16], [17], [18], [19]) Clearly countless reliable sources consider this topic to be very important for understanding Trump as a politician. In the years since we first discussed this omission, the body of literature has continued to grow and now includes entire books and academic conferences dedicated to the subject.

We already have a stand-alone article that discusses his physical and mental health (

As you probably know, this issue has been debated before, and settled in favor of

consensus may have changed, please suggest some text and start an RfC. I'm not sure that digging up 2016–2017 sources, as you did above, will help change anybody's mind. If you have more recent material to support your suggestion, let's see it. — JFG ^talk

06:08, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

In part, I agree with what JFG is saying. This article is written in

summary style, which means it should ideally be a concise summary of all the "daughter articles" that are biographically significant. With that said, Tataral is talking about bringing in a highly controversial aspect of Trump, who is already a highly controversial and polarizing figure. The best way to do this is for Tataral to come up with a very short paragraph that summarizes what needs to be said, then present it here for debate; however, it is premature to be talking about RfCs. An RfC is only necessary when normal discussion has broken down, and we haven't even started to consider some appropriate text yet. -- Scjessey (talk

) 13:07, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

This issue has been discussed before. It has not been "settled" and there is no consensus either for or against including this material now, and never has been (as also discussed before). As also discussed before, a consensus for including this material might very well develop in the future, so this was always an issue that we would have to revisit – in this case because it is a topic with its own daughter article that would normally be mentioned/summarized in the main article, and also because the topic was comparatively new when we first started to discuss it several years ago, so RS hadn't had the same chance to digest it. It's normal to start with an informal discussion and it's never a good solution to start an RfC right away without that. An RfC might be appropriate when people have had a chance to weigh in and the options have become clear.

Clearly there is no reason that is actually based on Wikipedia policy for omitting this material when the topic is even deemed worthy of a stand-alone daughter article. The only opposition I've seen was based on

WP:FRINGE POV, seemingly based on one Wikipedia editor's (mis)reading of the non-binding and widely ignored (even explicitly rejected

) opinion of just one private association in just one country, where their views regarding that were promptly ignored by the countless experts who went on to write books, have conferences at Yale, write papers and talk to journalists on the topic anyway, not to mention that this recommendation had no relevance for experts and commentators in Europe, Asia, South America etc. in the first place, thereby being very US-centric. The recommendation was also about the personal conduct of mental health professionals within the US and not about Wikipedia content or the broader public discourse. Two entirely different things, so it's also a form of OR/SYNTH.

The lack of coverage of this material is part of a larger problem with this article. High quality reliable sources, like The New York Times, overwhelmingly portray Trump in a highly critical light – and his personality is one of the main issues in that coverage, even more so than his actual policies. This article portrays him in an unduly positive light – even Putin is portrayed in a much more critical light, despite years-long efforts[21] by pro-Kremlin accounts to influence the article. Material critical of Trump is systematically downplayed or removed in a manner that doesn't reflect how the topic is covered in reliable sources and that therefore violates

WP:WEIGHT. --Tataral (talk

) 14:15, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm open to this, but I would have to see some copy with some impeccable sources. I think it would have to be pretty brief, and I'm not sure where in the article it could be placed.- MrX 🖋 15:08, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Given the current structure of the article, it could belong in the section where he is now described as "clinically obese". Although, given the relationship between his personality and politics, a separate first-level section titled "personality" (as seen in several other articles) further below could also be an option. --Tataral (talk) 15:17, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with Scjessey and MrX. Three of the four sources cited by Tataral were published before the summer 2017 consensus formed to exclude this type of material, so I'm a bit skeptical. And the false WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT accusations aren't helpful either. Then again, consensus can change. I'd like to see what we can come up with.
  R2 (bleep
  ) 17:25, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

• • Since you only registered your account months ago, I'm astonished that you claim detailed knowledge of discussions from way before that, but for the record there was no consensus formed in 2017. The lack of a consensus for including the material at that time does not equal a consensus against it either, only that we would have to revisit the question again in the future (such as now) in order to get consensus for it. I see no legitimate reason for discarding sources merely because they are from 2016 or 2017, and the few sources mentioned were merely examples of a large body of sources discussing this as everyone here are aware of. In fact Trump's personality, narcissism is something that is constantly discussed, more or less daily. I found articles from The New York Times from only yesterday discussing it. [22],[23],[24],[25] The issue here isn't sources but a false claim and original research by one or two members of the pro-Trump crowd that we "can't" discuss someone's personality for some non-existent legal reason (or something like that), and regardless of an ocean of sources discussing the topic, because we, or the sources, haven't met the subject in person, which is both wrong and ridiculous, and certainly not based on Wikipedia policy. --Tataral (talk) 18:26, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Whoa... talk about unprovoked battlegrounding and personalization of what I thought was supposed to be a friendly, collaborative discussion... You're not going to win consensus that way. Since you only registered your account months ago, I'm astonished that you claim detailed knowledge of discussions from way before that, but for the record there was no consensus formed in 2017. Are you familiar with the talk page archives? Now, setting aside all of that nastiness, if there are more recent sources, then by all means go ahead and use them to draft something up.

R2 (bleep

) 18:41, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

@Tataral: Yeah, you need to back that shit down a bit and not jump on R2 like that. Also, might I suggest collecting your thoughts and assembling your comments before posting your wall of text comment here, rather than posting and then making umpteen revisions? -- Scjessey (talk) 19:42, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I compose long-ish comments in Notepad (the most basic text editor that comes with Windows), then copy-and-paste. I have a Notepad window always open for use as a "scratch pad" for that and other purposes, so I'm saved the effort of opening one. In more than one way that works better for me than using the wiki editor for that purpose. YMMV. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:17, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Tataral, please stop opining about the beliefs or competence of other editors. The subject of this article is very controversial, so it's hard to maintain cooperation, but we need to try. Quit the accusations (WP:IDONTLIKEIT is an accusation) and stick to neutral discussion. Also, it isn't necessary to state and restate your opinion multiple times. What we need here is to concentrate on the article content. What exactly are you proposing to add? As you know I oppose the idea of putting attempts to diagnose or label him into this BLP, but I'm a reasonable person. Let's see what you are proposing to say. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:46, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Because this topic has its own main article, any material here should be a summary of that (Wikipedia:Summary style). In the past there have been attempts to argue that the amount and quality of reliable sources discussing this issue don't matter because of a supposed legal or pseudo-legal requirement to omit opinions of everyone but his personal physician, so I thought it was necessary to discuss that before preparing a specific text. I might attempt to draft a proposal during the weekend, depending on the discussion and related events (if the health article is nominated for deletion, it would make sense to wait for the result of that before proceeding with the summary of it here). --Tataral (talk) 00:57, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't know if someone is going to nominate it for AFD but I agree it would be worthwhile to get it evaluated before adding something here. BTW please be more selective and accurate when you cite sources here. Of the “articles from the New York Times only yesterday” that you cited above, only one is actually recent or from the NYT. The first two are unacceptable as sources - an interview with a German psychotherapist, undated but apparently from 2017, and an interview last January from an unknown publication called Hillreporter that can’t even spell psychologist (see the url). The NYT opinion is recent does not address his mental health, just his quirks. The Esquire article is from last March and seems to be about a re-issue of “The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump.” We are persuadable by good sources here, so make sure your sources are good. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:09, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I had not previously been aware of the article

I see no evidence that

Health of Donald Trump has passed an AfD. Wouldn't there be a note near the top of its ATP? I think an AfD would be a healthy thing to do. ―Mandruss ☎

00:11, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

The problem with this highly idiosyncratic opinion is

1. it is presented as a pseudo-legal requirement that trumps the massive coverage of the topic in reliable sources, but is in reality based on a completely non-binding request from a private association within one particular profession within a single country
2. it has been massively ignored and rejected by members of that profession even within their own country; as they have continued to comment on his mental health in newspapers, on television, in academic papers and books, conferences
3. it never had any relevance at all outside of the US, and numerous experts from other countries in Europe and elsewhere have weighed in on Trump's personality/mental health, both in 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019
4. the request was related to the personal conduct of psychiatrists in the US, not public discourse. It does not follow from that request that Wikipedia shouldn't include such discussion, that's just SYNTH/OR. We could even base our entire discussion of his personality on experts from other professions (such as psychologists) and other countries.

in essence, the idea is a

WP:FRINGE POV as there is no evidence of any reliable sources taking it seriously. It was briefly reported merely as a request within just one profession in just one country that experts disagreed with and that high quality reliable sources (NYT etc.) massively ignored. --Tataral (talk

) 00:12, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with

R2 (bleep

) 23:00, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Which Wikipedia policies and/or guidelines is this opposition based on? Especially considering that the argument for inclusion is based on clearly articulated Wikipedia policies and guidelines (specifically the existence of an abundance of

reliable sources discussing the topic and that figure prominently in the coverage of Trump, as well as the existence of an in-depth Wikipedia article that is an established part of the Donald Trump article suite and therefore should be summarized here)? --Tataral (talk

) 02:35, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

@

Snooganssnoogans: If reliable sources of good quality quoted "outside actors" (I assume you mean from-a-distance diagnoses) in their reporting, then that would pass muster for inclusion in a Wikipedia article if such content satisfied the other usual constraints. With that said, the content would have to be awfully compelling to get my support. -- Scjessey (talk

) 10:45, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

• Meh.
  WP:SENSATIONAL and marketing to a particular audience. I don’t blame various players (NYT, MSNBC, Acosta, Maddox) for playing distorted or faked portrayals to their markets any more than I blame other players (Fox, Hannity, Limbaugh) for doing the same. It seems one gets $2 million USD per tabloid book or stand up a POV ‘non-profit’ so kind of hard to expect that SOMEbody won’t make stuff up. I just advocate WPP plus (a) a 48 hour waiting period vs new hot story on this morning’s feed, (b) checking with left-central BBC.com as a mark of what’s internationally noteworthy, and (c) checking the both Fox and MSNBC also to judge what the full range of mainstream media take is. Generally I’m also skeptical and contrarian, have a few personal views (US is about 6-12 months behind UK/world in general trend that Trump’s just a part of, etc) and am strongly preferring simple fact vs yet another of the crafted spins. Markbassett (talk
  ) 15:38, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: If the deletion discussion ongoing at
  U.S. News, and The Atlantic). If there are concerns that these sources are themselves making false or defamatory claims, then the solution is to carefully indicate that the claim is arising from the source, and not an assertion of fact on Wikipedia's part. bd2412 T
  18:26, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I understand your point. I still have a problem with armchair psychoanalyses, no matter the source, as I stated in the current consensus discussion. However, given the enormous info we now have, including his near constant twitter feed that seems like a direct connection to his unfiltered thoughts; I’m beginning to feel as though he’s more open to analysis than the typical, hour a week patient. The amount merged is likely to require a long discussion. O3000 (talk) 19:09, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Try finding a mental health professional that says he does not have issues..it`s not so much that opinion doesn`t count but if you do and put it in the article it will be supported by the same who want to keep the opposite out regardless of the truth. 2600:1702:2340:9470:D968:91F2:DF40:9D92 (talk) 16:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Do we really need this? All we have is an ever-changing number based on an estimate, and this is a parameter not normally found in biographies of presidents. As I said in a previous thread, discussing the wealth of an individual is vulgar. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:36, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I would say it should be there. It's not normally found in biographies of presidents, but keep in mind this article predates his presidency, and his notability prior to becoming president was primarily based on his perceived wealth and business acumen. Rather than comparing the infobox to other presidents, I would compare it to other people known for their wealth, such as

problem solving

17:45, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I considered this, and dismissed it. Whatever Trump has been known as, he is now chiefly known as an American president. JFK was also spectacularly wealthy, but we don't mention his net worth in the infobox either. Moreover, we don't even know if the dubious Forbes data is accurate, because it changes constantly and it is disputed by Trump himself. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:44, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

No. Not only is it unusual to include this for a politician, it is a highly dubious number - as Scjessey points out. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:59, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

See, he wouldn't be president if he wasn't already known for what he has been known as prior to becoming president (This is true of any president, really. Name recognition is important for a candidate's viability.). Also, the fact that he's been known to exaggerate his wealth is an important part of the story of who he is and how he became president. This is the biography article, not the article about his presidency, and I feel it's important to continue to present the full picture of him, not just the most recent chapter of his life. ~

problem solving

01:34, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I generally oppose appeals to precedent, which is mostly the result of democratic voting by editing—little thought and no discussion. Such appeals also tend to impede evolution of the encyclopedia. More specific to this case, Trump is hardly the typical or average president, so precedents like this wouldn't apply anyway. I wish the number were more reliable, but it's attributed to a respected source and identified as an estimate—somewhat conspicuously, the only footnote in the infobox. On balance I lean toward include/no change. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:17, 6 June 2019 (UTC)