Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 80

Archive 75

←

Archive 78

Archive 79

Archive 80

Archive 81

Archive 82

→

Archive 85

"False statements" section

Section title

Earlier today Atsme changed the title of that subsection from "False statements" to "False, exaggerated or distorted statements." I disagree with that change. The fact checkers are not calling him out for exaggerating; they are calling him out for saying things that are simply false - factually incorrect. The Reliable Sources quoted in that section say "false or misleading" (twice), "inaccurate", and "misstatements". I think we should change the title back. --MelanieN (talk) 01:30, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree, we follow RS. And what RS say distorted? O3000 (talk) 01:41, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Not true - read the NYTimes article. They are specific statements they're calling out - the higher quality RS qualify what statements they are calling out. Don't forget, we should be using specific statements, not generalizations. For example, is it really a falsehood to say more people watched the inauguration when you consider 8 years later, people were watching on different devices? This is still a BLP, and while we have some leniency with PUBLICFIGURE, we still have to use in-text attribution when the claims are as vague as these. That is exactly why I wrote the paragraphs the way I did and used in-text attribution to quote the source. You have more leeway in the Presidency of... but I would still steer clear of generalizations. Oh, and Melanie - call an RfC if you are in disagreement because local consensus just isn't going to cut it. ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:45, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

The section title was not a fair representation of the overall coverage of Trump's habit of lying. If anything, this section should be updated based on more recent tallies of his lies, and the widespread view that the lies are not simply exaggerations or "distorted statements" (which is just a fancy way of saying "lies"). If this section is going to be changed so radically, it needs to be discussed first and should be based on a broader, not a narrower, perspective.- MrX 🖋 02:11, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Either restore the original title (or retitle it to "Alternative facts", which is the Trump administation's word for "falsehoods". No, just use the original title.) -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

MrX - see #22 above in the list of consensus items. If you keep using the word "lies" to describe this BLP, you are very likely to be in vio of BLP. I'm not sure what you did is not borderline a vio of Consensus - re: any page BLP vio. The cited sources you replaced are #255 "Fact-Checking President Trump Through His First 100 Days", #256 "President Trump's first 100 days: The fact check tally", and #257 "In One Rally, 12 Inaccurate Claims From Trump", and only one cited source at #258 "President Trump has made 1,318 false or misleading claims over 263 days". The words false or misleading claims is used, so what I added was very much supported by the cited sources, and if you'll read the Times article, the falsehoods some seem to be getting all out of NPOV whack over were qualified by the NYTimes with a very unambiguous explanation that media singled out specific statements so you actually returned a section I worked to make compliant and returned it to noncompliance and did so via a BLP vio in your edit summary. Would you like to self-revert or are you not concerned about a BLP vio in light of #22 Consensus list? ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:47, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

It's not violating anything to improve the text. SPECIFICO talk 02:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Sometimes not calling a lie a lie is a lie. If we're discussing RS which use the word "lie" or "liar", then we should be able to use their wording when discussing them without someone getting all thin-skinned about it. It's different if we are just voicing our opinions. Then we should be careful. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:03, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@Atsme:Why are you referring me to consensus #22? I never wrote that he is a liar in the article, and I wouldn't because it's not in keeping with encyclopedic tone. But let's not mince words—he is most definitely a liar; a fact which is well documented in multiple reliable sources, including the ones I linked below. Your version was much less representative of the body of sources on the subject than the current version. I'm happy to discuss how we can make it even better, by updating it and informing our readers of how extensively Trump's lies permeate his public persona.[1][2]- MrX 🖋 03:08, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

My goodness, MrX - I quoted the sources, how can you say what I added was less representative? That's bologna!! 🥪 WaPo used "lies" in the headline - hello bait-click - but in the body they say "3,000 false or misleading public statements." You know better, so why are you doing this? ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

The headline is also part of the source and can be quoted. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

"Body of sources", meaning the preponderance of reliable sources, not the few that one finds that happen to agree with one's person POV. Psst. It's click-bait not bait-click.- MrX 🖋 03:28, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

MrX, mine is the action verb form: bait headline...reader clicks....bait-click. 😂 ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:04, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Don't mind me, I'm just heading to the store to buy some bait-fish. 172.58.153.102 (talk) 15:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

IP, real anglers don't buy bait - they throw a bait-net. ^{Atsme📞📧} 05:23, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

First sentence of the paragraph

Another, kind of minor thing in that section, but I will bring it here since there was disagreement at the article. In the "False statements" section, the first sentence used to read As president, Trump has frequently made false statements in public speeches and remarks. Atsme changed that first sentence to Media fact checkers have analyzed some of Trump's statements during his first 100 days as president, and determined that he made frequent false, exaggerated or distorted claims in his public speeches and remarks. I changed that to Media fact checkers have analyzed some of Trump's statements since assuming the presidency, and determined that he made frequent false, exaggerated or distorted claims in his public speeches and remarks. with the edit summary "not just the first 100 days". The paragraph includes fact-check tallies from 100 days, 99 days, and 263 days, as well as more general statements not qualified as to what time period they are covering. She restored the "during his first 100 days as president" wording, with the edit summary "the first few sentences are cited to the 1st 100 days only, then it changes to different periods and citations". I don’t think we should specify "first 100 days" in the opening sentence of the paragraph when that doesn’t apply to the whole paragraph. And now that I look at it (I missed this before), it should say "false statements," not "false, exaggerated or distorted claims," because the latter does not reflect what the sources say. --MelanieN (talk) 01:30, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Again agree. We must use RS? O3000 (talk) 01:42, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Disagree - the sources cited state 1ST 100 DAYS. The sources also use the word "claims". What you're doing now seems more like IDONTLIKEIT. The information in that section is cited to specific sources that made the specific claims. You cannot just generalize without sourcing it to something in a BLP, and you can't have your own facts. Be specific to the RS and keep PUBLICFIGURE, CONTENTIOUS LABELS, and BALANCE AND WEIGHT in mind. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:51, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

We're way past 100 days, so let's dispense with that and update the article. We can start with his 3000+ lies.[3][4][5].- MrX 🖋 02:15, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

MrX - the NYTimes article I cited was dated March 17, 2018. Did you get a chance to read it? ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:09, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes.- MrX 🖋 03:38, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Unlike the other article's section at Presidency of Donald Trump#False and misleading statements (an excellent section title we could use here), we are not limited to his presidency. We can go as far back as we have RS documentation. We can start with my first suggestion there, which, unfortunately, included some content from before his presidency, so it was correct to pare it down, and I did. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:29, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

(EC) Atsme: Huh? Are we talking about the same edit? As far as the first 100 days thing, I am just saying that the opening sentence of the paragraph, which is written like a summary, should not include a figure that applies to only part of the paragraph. That’s a simple matter of summary style. As for all that alphabet soup, are you talking about your preference to say false, exaggerated and distorted claims instead of false statements? I don’t really care about claims vs statements and I don’t want to use up all my monthly allotment of NYT and WaPo articles to see which is more commonly used. But I do object to adding exaggerated when exaggeration is not what he is getting called out for. Look a the sources yourself: false or misleading is the predominant descriptor used. In any case, you only harm your own credibility when you start shouting BLP! and RfC! and Exceptional claims! over a matter of whether to add or remove a couple of words, when the issue is readily solved by consulting the sources. --MelanieN (talk) 02:34, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

That "alphabet soup" equals IDONTLIKEIT. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:39, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Stop the snark, BR. Melanie - the summary statement is misleading and not supported by the cited sources which is why I used in-text attribution. Furthermore, MrX just reverted the NYTimes updated 2018 statement that qualified the media's selections of falsehoods, misstatements and distortions by Trump - Some questions have been raised in an attempt to determine when he knows "the things he says are false, and when is he simply misinformed." ^{ref:"The New York Times 2018"} The New York Times qualified that claims of Trump's falsehoods and misstatements are "not scientific measurements, of course, because the selection of statements for examination is inherently subjective and focused on those that seem questionable, rather than a gauge of all public comments." By removing that statement and what I added made that section unquestionably noncompliant with NPOV....not only because it was based on cherrypicked statements by Trump the media used for analysis, but because the lead in sentence generalizes the whole thing. It's wrong, and it's noncompliant with policy. We don't call any BLP a "liar", especially when #22 Consensus above says not to do that. We are now in BLP vio territory. ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:04, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

We do quote RS when they use words like "lie" and "liar". We just don't do it in wikivoice. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:09, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

The subject is "false" statements, not "true" statements. To stay on topic one must cherrypick statements, leaving out the true and documenting the false. This type of cherrypicking is perfectly proper. We are even allowed to have articles here that focus on a single "notable" POV. Trump is remarkable for the degree to which his statements are untrue. He's way outside the norm for what we mean when we say that "everyone lies" or "all politicians lie". He's uniquely disconnected from truth. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:15, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

"President Donald Trump is an "unethical" man "untethered to truth and institutional values," former FBI Director James Comey writes in his eagerly anticipated memoir, which paints the president as living in "a cocoon of alternative reality."" NBC News A great book. We're almost finished listening to the audiobooks version. He narrates it himself. I have the book as well. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, I'm not exactly sure what you think this means:

"These are not scientific measurements, of course, because the selection of statements for examination is inherently subjective and focused on those that seem questionable, rather than a gauge of all public comments." ^{ref:"The New York Times 2018"}

That looks like a standard disclaimer. They are not making some sort of ratio statement, for example 73% true vs. 27% false. In fact, one never sees such things. They are choosing to look at statements which accuracy have been doubted. Then they analyze them. That's what fact checkers do. They don't examine statements which are not questioned. True statements don't usually get questioned, only statements that seem dubious. Then they are rated as true, mixed, or false (or some such system). Our section covers the false ones.

The same standard is used for all public persons and politicians. Trump is judged by the same standards used by all members of the International Fact-Checking Network. The major fact checkers are members and are nonpartisan: Poynter Institute, PolitiFact, FactCheck, Snopes, and The Washington Post.

Trump rates as far more deceptive because he is, not because he's been treated unfairly. Them's the facts, and I don't have the luxury of ignoring those facts, as some do. Editors here should be better than that. Ideally we should take it for granted that our politicians attempt to always be honest with us. They lose credibility when they frequently let us down. We shouldn't be in this situation, where neither Americans nor foreign allies can trust Trump because he lacks credibility. He can't be trusted because he is dishonest so much of the time. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Looks like we are talking about the whole edit, not just those two points

I see that MrX has restored [6] the previous text of the article since we should discuss such changes before implementing them. That unfortunately removed the March 2018 NYT article you added, which I think added valuable balance to the section, and I would be OK with re-adding it if others agree. My opposition to "exaggerated and distorted claims" still stands. --MelanieN (talk) 02:34, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm opposed to the vague wording "Some questions have been raised in an attempt to determine when he knows "the things he says are false, and when is he simply misinformed."" and it's at least a little tangential to the central fact that his statements and comments are very frequently at at odds with objective reality.- MrX 🖋 03:20, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I object, too. As I said in another thread a couple of days ago, the quotes were cherry-picked and taken out of context. The contested content was:

1. Some questions have been raised in an attempt to determine when he knows "the things he says are false, and when is he simply misinformed." For starters, "questions being raised in an attempt to determine" is gobbledygook. The NYT article says that there’s a debate about whether he knowingly tells falsehoods or not; there’s no debate about the actual telling. The article then continues: "Mr. Trump, after all, has made so many claims that stretch the bounds of accuracy that full-time fact-checkers struggle to keep up. Most Americans long ago concluded that he is dishonest, according to polls. While most presidents lie at times, Mr. Trump’s speeches and Twitter posts are embedded with so many false, distorted, misleading or unsubstantiated claims that he has tested even the normally low standards of American politics." That sounds pretty conclusive to me.
2. The New York Times qualified that claims of Trump's falsehoods and misstatements are "not scientific measurements, of course, because the selection of statements for examination is inherently subjective and focused on those that seem questionable, rather than a gauge of all public comments." The first part of the sentence is editorializing and generalizing; the NYT was talking only about PolitiFacts' selection and the comparative percentages it found for various politicians. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:11, 14 May 2018 (UTC) Re "claims of falsehoods and misstatements": Nice editorial spin: The NYT article uses the verb five times, the noun three, and every time it's about Trump's claims about all sort of things, not other people's claims about him. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:23, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN, I don't agree with MrX regarding his reasons for opposing the following: "Some questions have been raised in an attempt to determine when he knows "the things he says are false, and when is he simply misinformed." I paraphrased and used in-line text attribution from the NYTimes which, in exact wording, states: "But the episode goes to the heart of a more fundamental debate about Mr. Trump: When does he know the things he says are false, and when is he simply misinformed?" My paraphrased lead into the quote represents what the source says; however, I would not be opposed to quoting the published sentence in its entirety if it offers a path to resolution. I also object to the false comparisons being made about Trump's falsehoods vs those of past presidents, primarily because no consideration was given to the fact that Trump has done his best to avoid the measured/rehearsed/prepared press conferences while opting for public rallies, conferences, Twitter and on-the-fly exchanges with media - and he's had many - leaving him far more exposed to media criticism whenever he gets a fact wrong, exaggerates, misstates, or distorts information. He clearly lacks the suave and political posh of those who were groomed for that position. I believe it is important information that should be included in his BLP because it speaks volumes as to who he is, his demeanor, what he lacks in political polish, why his base continues to support him, etc. ^{Atsme📞📧} 06:38, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Please don't put any of that original research in the article. Thanks for linking to the Politico article. Unfortunately, it does not support your theory.- MrX 🖋 12:17, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

MrX - what OR are you referring to? I'm quoting the NYTimes. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:23, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@Atsme: Everything starting with "... the false comparisons being made..." until the end. Also, your paraphrase was not really a faithful representation of the source. See Space4Time3Continuum2x's comment for more information.- MrX 🖋 19:27, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Well...again, I disagree, and apparently so does the Politico article I linked. Vanity Fair supports my claim of "measured/rehearsed/prepared" exposure by the former president, but I have other articles I want to work on today, so I'll leave it there. Happy editing! ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:40, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

False and misleading statements - new content

Here it is. We can use it here, as a start. I have relied heavily on factual, not opinion, sources, IOW fact checkers and researchers. These are not opinions, but descriptions of actual research and statistics used by fact checkers. It can no doubt be improved. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

As president, Trump has made a large number of false statements in public speeches and remarks. Trump uttered "at least one false or misleading claim per day on 91 of his first 99 days" in office according to The New York Times, and 1,628 total in his first 298 days in office according to the "Fact Checker" analysis of The Washington Post, or an average of 5.5 per day. The Post fact-checker also wrote, "President Trump is the most fact-challenged politician that The Fact Checker has ever encountered... the pace and volume of the president's misstatements means that we cannot possibly keep up."

Glenn Kessler, a fact checker for The Washington Post, told Dana Milbank that, in his six years on the job, "'there's no comparison' between Trump and other politicians. Kessler says politicians' statements get his worst rating — four Pinocchios — 15 percent to 20 percent of the time. Clinton is about 15 percent. Trump is 63 percent to 65 percent."

Maria Konnikova, writing in Politico Magazine, wrote: "All Presidents lie.... But Donald Trump is in a different category. The sheer frequency, spontaneity and seeming irrelevance of his lies have no precedent.... Trump seems to lie for the pure joy of it. A whopping 70 percent of Trump’s statements that PolitiFact checked during the campaign were false, while only 4 percent were completely true, and 11 percent mostly true."

Senior administration officials have also regularly given false, misleading or tortured statements to the media. By May 2017, Politico reported that the repeated untruths by senior officials made it difficult for the media to take official statements seriously.

Trump's presidency started out with a series of falsehoods initiated by Trump himself. The day after his inauguration, he falsely accused the media of lying about the size of the inauguration crowd. Then he proceeded to exaggerate the size, and Sean Spicer backed up his claims. When Spicer was accused of intentionally misstating the figures, Kellyanne Conway, in an interview with NBC's Chuck Todd, defended Spicer by stating that he merely presented "alternative facts". Todd responded by saying "alternative facts are not facts. They're falsehoods."

Social scientist and researcher Bella DePaulo, an expert on the psychology of lying, stated: "I study liars. I've never seen one like President Trump." Trump outpaced "even the biggest liars in our research." She compared the research on lying with his lies, finding that his lies differed from those told by others in several ways: Trump's total rate of lying is higher than for others; He tells 6.6 times as many self-serving lies as kind lies, whereas ordinary people tell 2 times as many self-serving lies as kind lies. 50% of Trump's lies are cruel lies, while it's 1-2% for others. 10% of Trump's lies are kind lies, while it's 25% for others. His lies often "served several purposes simultaneously", and he doesn't "seem to care whether he can defend his lies as truthful".

Dara Lind described "The 9 types of lies Donald Trump tells the most". He lies about: tiny things; crucial policy differences; chronology; makes himself into the victim; exaggerates "facts that should bolster his argument"; "endorses blatant conspiracy theories"; "things that have no basis in reality"; "obscures the truth by denying he said things he said, or denying things are known that are known"; and about winning.

In a Scientific American article, Jeremy Adam Smith sought to answer the question of how Trump could get away with making so many false statements and still maintain support among his followers. He proposed that "Trump is telling 'blue' lies—a psychologist's term for falsehoods, told on behalf of a group, that can actually strengthen the bonds among the members of that group.... From this perspective, lying is a feature, not a bug, of Trump's campaign and presidency."

David Fahrenthold has investigated Trump's claims about his charitable giving and found little evidence the claims are true. Following Fahrenthold's reporting, the Attorney General of New York opened an inquiry into the Donald J. Trump Foundation's fundraising practices, and ultimately issued a "notice of violation" ordering the Foundation to stop raising money in New York. The Foundation had to admit it engaged in self-dealing practices to benefit Trump, his family, and businesses. Fahrenthold won the 2017 Pulitzer Prize in National Reporting for his coverage of Trump's claimed charitable giving and casting "doubt on Donald Trump's assertions of generosity toward charities."

In March 2018, The Washington Post reported that Trump, at a fundraising speech, had recounted the following incident: in a meeting with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Trump insisted to Trudeau that the United States ran a trade deficit with Canada, even though Trump later admitted he had "no idea" whether that was really the case. According to the Office of the United States Trade Representative, the United States has a trade surplus with Canada.

Here are a few of Trump's notable claims which fact checkers have rated false: that Obama wasn't born in the United States and that Hillary Clinton started the Obama "birther" movement; that his electoral college victory was a "landslide"; that Hillary Clinton received 3-5 million illegal votes; and that he was "totally against the war in Iraq".

Sources

Atsme, please look this over for any potential BLP vios. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:57, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

This is a good start, but we should avoid excessive quotes and specific examples. The subject should be covered at a high level. There are just too many lies to from which to draw just a few representative examples.- MrX 🖋 03:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

The last sentence lists only a few "specific examples". I did choose the "high level", the scholarly, serious, professional approach, rather than sensational and opinions. Getting into opinions here would make the section too large. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:29, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

MrX, your criticism would ring more true if you had read it before commenting. Your comment was written and published in less than a minute after my content was published. Unless you can read all of my content and then write and publish your comment very fast.... 02:37 >> 03:14. You did all of that in 37 seconds. Impressive! -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:44, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Huh? I commented 36 minutes after you posted your text.- MrX 🖋 03:55, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm so sorry! I don't know what I was thinking. Minutes...seconds....big difference. My apologies. Let's start over. I still don't see how your comment really applies, as my few "specific examples" are only in the last sentence, with very few others. The Trudeau one was already in the presidential article, but we could leave it out. It's interesting as it's a rare example of Trump admitting he was lying. He doesn't usually do that, doesn't care, or seem to even know the difference. It's as if the idea of "truth" is foreign to him. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:18, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

BR, you're not seriously suggesting that we put this massive (even if sourced) essay into a minor subsection of an article the size of this? The subject of his dishonesty can have at most two paragraphs. At most. --MelanieN (talk) 05:10, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

As I mentioned before, I think we need to generalize more, and distill the various angles into a cohesive summary. Obviously, your proposed content is focused on his presidency, but we also need to cover falsehoods before and during the campaign. I'm opposed to attributing views to individuals, when it is obvious that at least some of those views can be asserted in Wikipedia's voice. Saying that fact checkers have rated a few of Trump's claims as false is a WP:WEASELy way of saying Trump has made false claims that Obama wasn't born in the United States, that Hillary Clinton started the Obama "birther" movement, that his electoral college victory was a "landslide", that Hillary Clinton received 3-5 million illegal votes, and that he was "totally against the war in Iraq".- MrX 🖋 14:29, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I must admit that some of that makes no sense. I'm not sure what your point is. I provided that content as something to work with. Go ahead and use it or not, but you're welcome to provide some proposed content that illustrates what you mean. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:47, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

So what do you call it when someone gets the facts wrong? Is that lying? What about when you're thinking someone is talking about the blue car, and you say no, the seats are beige, but they're actually talking about the red car with white leather. Is that lying? What about when you don't reveal all of your strategy when making a deal, and just say what you think will get the deal made - is that lying? Oh, and the fact that other presidents didn't use Twitter, or make as many public statements as this one - does that count? I say it's FALSE EQUIVALENCY to say one president lied more than another if you don't use a fair comparison. How many speeches and tweets did Trump engage in during his first 100 days vs Obama, or Bush, or Clinton? This whole falsehood thing is just plain ridiculous. ^{Atsme📞📧} 04:19, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, do you really fail to grasp that such reasoning is completely outside our purview as Wikipedia editors? RS clearly says Trump breaks new ground in the falsehood area, and that ends the discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:27, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

"do you really fail to grasp..." WP:NPA please, Mandruss. The discussion is ended? Why? This holding onto POV content and lack of balance is the perfect example of why "verifiability over truth" is an incredibly flawed policy, and in the end is one of the main reasons why Wikipedia will never be considered a reliable source. In this case (as with so many others), common sense and a strict adherence to true balance is what should supercede "we follow the sources". Why can't we discuss making that happen? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 04:52, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, by my count, in this discussion you have said "lie", "liar", or "lying" six times - and yet NO ONE has proposed putting any variation of that word into the article, and it isn't there now. We have avoided, for years, saying "liar" in Wikipedia's voice, and if I have anything to say about it we never will. So please drop that non-existent controversy. From now on, any time you claim we are proposing to add "lying" or "liar" to the article, we will disregard everything else you say in that paragraph, because you are clearly not paying attention. As for "BLP" or "BLP violation", I believe you have invoked that six times as well, and that is frankly ridiculous. The man has been reported, over and over, by numerous reliable sources, to have made and continue to make a extremely unusual number of "false or misleading" statements. For us not to say so would be a violation of neutrality amounting to censorship. It would certainly not be a violation of BLP, much less PUBLICFIGURE. --MelanieN (talk) 05:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC) BTW I proposed above that the balancing material you added - from the March 2018 NYT article - be restored, but that will depend on whether it gets consensus.

Why is this discussion going off on a tangent? Jiminy Cricket, can it get anymore ridiculous? MrX specifically stated a no-no in his edit summary, so please don't even try to compare it to my examples. We should not be generalizing a contentious statement in Wikivoice which is not compliant with NPOV and doesn't even accurately represent what exceptional sources have said: Trump has frequently made false statements in public speeches and remarks. It automatically begs the question, what statements were false? Are you forgetting how many readers we have that don't hate Trump, and actually support his policies? This isn't about what you or I like or don't like. It's about getting the article right. I'm saying we need to more closely reflect what exceptional sources have said, and to use inline citations and in-text attribution to quote contentious statements per MOS & NPOV - Strive to eliminate expressions that are flattering, disparaging, vague, or clichéd, or that endorse a particular point of view (unless those expressions are part of a quote from a noteworthy source) which is why I wrote: Media fact checkers have analyzed some of Trump's statements during his first 100 days as president, and determined that he made frequent false, exaggerated or distorted claims in his public speeches and remarks. Linda Qiu with The New York Times wrote: "The Times has logged at least one false or misleading claim per day on 91 of his first 99 days" in office. There was no valid reason to revert that edit, Melanie. We need to more closely adhere to policy by using in-text attribution cited to quotes in the source, and to qualify how the media made their determination that he made false, exaggerated or distorted claims. MrX reverted my edit for no good reason and that is disruptive. I'm left with no other option but to call an RfC and get consensus in an effort to be compliant with policy, and that's pretty sad when any editor has to work under such conditions. ^{Atsme📞📧} 06:29, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, one more time: People can say "lie" in an edit summary, that is not a BLP violation. They can say "liar" on the talk page, that is not a BLP violation. We have not said "lie" or "liar" in the article in Wikipedia’s voice, and stop talking as if that is what people were proposing to do. The statement you quoted here - "Trump has frequently made false statements in public speeches and remarks" - is totally compliant with NPOV; to leave it out would be a violation of neutrality and balance. It does not "beg the question"; on the contrary it supports it with references that lay out in great and specific detail exactly what statements were false. A similar statement has been confirmed by consensus over and over. Finally, whether anyone "loves" or "hates" Trump is beside the point (I’ve been accused of both). As Wikipedia editors we are supposed to edit neutrally based on reliable sources, and you might be surprised (if you would Assume Good Faith) how many of us actually try to do that. Reliable sources mostly say "false and misleading"; that is their consensus reporting; "exaggerated or distorted" is not. Go ahead and call an RfC, if you like, and if you can make a coherent proposal out of what you are requesting comment on. But in the meantime, your proposed edits have been challenged and cannot be restored without consensus. --MelanieN (talk) 07:29, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

You cannot be serious with that purprosed text right? That gives just an astounding amount of weight to a tiny part of his presidency, let alone his whole life. I strongly suggest you withdraw at this point. PackMecEng (talk) 13:56, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

It's something to work with and can be pared down. Much of it is already the content in the section at the presidency article. The only reason many of the other sections in this article are so small is that they are the summaries of spinoff articles.

As far as the "weight" argument, keep in mind that this is arguably one of his most notable character traits often described by RS (narcissim, dishonesty, bullying), and fundamental to all he does, without exception. That makes it important enough to be the largest section, but I don't think that would be a good idea.

A separate article, with a summary and hatnote "main" link here, would be the ideal solution, but the proper way to start that process is with a section that balloons until it creates an undue weight situation, forcing the spinoff. That's the right way to do it.

You mention his presidency, but this is about his whole life. It carries more weight here than in the presidency article. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

"this is arguably one of his most notable character traits (narcissim, dishonesty, bullying" Narcissism is a psychological, mental illness diagnosis and I'm betting you're not qualified to make that diagnosis. Dishonesty is measured by different yardsticks depending on your political preference - be honest, what president hasn't been guilty of it? Bullying is a subjective assessment and also measured by different yardsticks dependent on whatever side of the political fence you reside. Bill Clinton's accusers in the way of sexual abuse, rape, harassment most certainly refer to him as a bully (not to mention he was dishonest enough that he ended up being impeached for it). Aside from all this, WP:UNDUE does apply several times over in regard to your proposed text. And please remember to follow BLP guidelines for discussion on article subjects. If you don't have an official diagnosis to prove Trump is a narcissist, you should strike that comment as it is a violation of BLP guidelines for talk pages. We don't comment on the mental health of article subjects without reliable sources to support such commentary. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:36, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I added "often described by RS" for your sake. We base our content on RS, not (just) on diagnoses. As far as dishonesty, NO, we based such judgements on verified facts, and RS document this in abundance. It's not a partisan issue, unless you make it one. As an editor you need to leave your politics out of this. If you can't see the difference between a false and true statement, then something's wrong. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:41, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Not sure how my push for NPOV and following policy could ever be confused with political bias. I guarantee you, no one here has any clue to my political leanings. Speculation and inaccurate assumption over someone's political ideology is inappropriate and has no place in WP:FOC. I would appreciate it if you would discontinue the attempts at gaslighting, as well, as such behavior is not WP:CIVIL and only serves to degrade discussion that should be productive. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:27, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Winkelvi, you're "not sure"? Maybe this? "Dishonesty is measured by different yardsticks depending on your political preference." Or your whataboutism about Bill Clinton? Stay on-topic. Don't deflect. We don't fall for such things here.

"Different yardsticks"? That's BS, unless you're referring to the editors who keep downplaying Trump's dishonesty by repeating "all politicians lie", when Trump is a complete outlier, with a wide gap between him and all other politicians. They refuse to acknowledge that Trump leads the pack by far, including when compared to other Republicans. Those editors certainly are using a different yardstick based on personal POV (and even, quite literally, that he won the election, so "who cares"). No, he doesn't get a free pass, or get judged by a different affluenza yardstick here.

The "yardstick" we use, and RS use, is exactly the same one applied to all other public persons and politicians. Fact checkers are nonpartisan, with objective yardsticks. They are experts at judging degrees of truth and falsehood, and when they call something a "lie", they aren't describing an "exaggeration" or "misstatement"; it's a "lie". It's not their opinion. It's objective, measurable, fact, not subject to interpretation.

BTW, your political leaning is pretty evident from what you write, how you comment, how you edit, and your fellow travelers. Don't try to hide it or be embarrassed to admit it. It's okay to have such. We all have leanings. Just don't allow it to affect your editing. In your case, and several others, it comes to expression in censorship and seeking to keep out anything negative about Trump, regardless of how well-sourced. If it's any comfort, you aren't the worst around here. Sometimes you shine through and manage to edit against your own POV. Good for you. We should all seek to do that. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:21, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

"Stay on-topic. Don't deflect. We don't fall for such things here." Lol! Thanks for the best laugh over irony and deflection I will likely have all week. Maybe the remainder of the month. Truth is, from getting to know you better through your talk page comments, I'm pretty sure you may have written the manual for deflecting and veering off-topic (your gaslighting efforts are transparent and have not gone unnoticed by others in addition to me, BR). As far as my political leanings -- sorry, but you really have me un-pegged and no clue where I stand politically. Truly, you don't. I know that hive-mindedness and groupthink are the thing these days, but my politics go back to the Eisenhower Administration (yes, I was alive then) when live and let live was an American value, no one really cared what someone else's political leanings were, and along with religion, politics were just not talked about among strangers. I long for those days to return, but probably will not live long enough to every see the pendulum swing that direction again. In Wikipedia, my only political leanings are in the way of neutral editing, honesty in content, and NPOV tone in articles - that's it. And really, if Wikipedia's policies took WP:OUTING seriously and that policy were complete, trying to guess or claiming one knows the politics of others when they haven't announced it would be a violation. It's no different than trying to guess someone's occupation or where they live. None of it is anyone else's business unless the editor being "investigated" by those opposing their very presence here chose to disclose it. In other words, just stop. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:43, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Extraneous info
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Fact checkers This is supplemental information: -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:33, 14 May 2018 (UTC) Here are a few of Trump's notable claims which fact checkers have rated false: that Obama wasn't born in the United States and that Hillary Clinton started the Obama "birther" movement; that his electoral college victory was a "landslide"; that Hillary Clinton received 3-5 million illegal votes; and that he was "totally against the war in Iraq". PolitiFact Donald Trump's file Comparing Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump on the Truth-O-Meter PolitiFact designated Trump's many campaign misstatements as their "2015 Lie of the Year". Fact-checking Trump's TIME interview on truths and falsehoods 7 whoppers from President Trump's first 100 days in office FactCheck Donald Trump archive Donald Trump, the candidate we dubbed the 'King of Whoppers' in 2015, has held true to form as president. The Whoppers of 2017, President Trump monopolizes our list of the year’s worst falsehoods and bogus claims. The Washington Post President Trump has made 2,436 false or misleading claims so far. Toronto Star Donald Trump: The unauthorized database of false things. The Star's Washington Bureau Chief, Daniel Dale, has been following Donald Trump's campaign for months. He has fact checked thousands of statements and found hundreds of falsehoods. Sources What is the purpose of the above text? Trump already admitted that Obama was born in the US after his research was completed. Why are you still harping on it? What is the purpose of the school yard colloquialism, King of the Whoppers? Are you comparing it to the same amount of exposure/transparency past presidents have had with the public, or were their appearances/speeches more carefully scripted, and far fewer? How much did they tweet? Got covfefe? How many public appearances/public speeches did they make compared to Trump's? How many times did you count where they stopped to respond to media while on their way to the chopper or plane? How many times did you see them appear on cable news shows? Has anyone taken the time to get such a count? The trend appears to be that it's far more fun to compare apples to oranges - our readers won't know, right? It's easy to say Trump jumped 25 hurdles and tripped 5 times while Obama & Bush only tripped 2ce over hurdles forgetting to mention they only jumped 10. Your result=Trump is king of the trippers. 😂 How about some perspective here - start by asking yourself...who the hell really cares? Over half the US - the ones who elected Trump - are more interested in their paychecks, the taxes they pay, the cost of fuel, cost of healthcare, world peace, JOBS, infrastructure, care for veterans, etc. I doubt few give a big 🐀's about the gossipy trivia that has zero encyclopedic value or lasting value. That's what the news provides, not what our encyclopedia should be providing. Atsme📞📧 21:00, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments on this talk page and WP:BLPTALK

WP:BLPTALK states, "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate." and editors are arguing that some of their comments are related to making content choices. However the "not related to making content choices" exception does not mean that editors are free to denigrate living people if they can somehow tie it to content. For example, saying that "x is a pathological liar and we shouldn't give her lies any credence" will get you sanctioned. Do the extra work, provide a reliable source that says "x is a habitual liar whose statements are often false", and refrain from giving the impression that you are offering a personal opinion of the subject. If necessary, I am prepared to add a new AE restriction to that effect but I hope it won't come to that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:26, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: In that case, BLPTALK seriously needs clarifying, and that is not wikilawyering but common sense. Unless my vision is even worse than I thought, there is nothing at BLPTALK that states or implies what you said above. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:34, 15 May 2018 (

Thank you for that, NeilN. That was my main concern, as the argument was being made that since a borderline fake-news website (Washington Press) attacked a living person, then somehow it's acceptable for us to do it as well (and the source didn't even use the same language). When I see "related to making content choices," I think in terms of "We should say this, because the source says this...but the source doesn't say that" sort of thing. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 21:41, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Mandruss, I believe that common sense dictates that an editor can't say "X is a pedophile and we should add that to the article" with no sources and claim that BLP doesn't apply because the comment relates to content. I freely acknowledge that the interpretation I stated above may be more restrictive than usual but I'm prepared to implement that as a AE restriction if need be. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:56, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: As written, the policy sets two separate conditions that must be met for a comment to be a violation. (1) Unsourced or poorly sourced. (2) Not related to making content choices. They are joined by the logical operator AND, not OR. I am finding it extremely difficult for my "common sense" to override what the thing actually says. What you, I, or anybody else feels it should say is beside the point for the purposes of editor behavior and enforcement. If you have the authority to unilaterally implement it as an AE restriction separate from policy, that would be an improvement over the status quo. At least the expectations would be clear. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:10, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@Mandruss: This conversation should probably be continued at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons but "OR" probably isn't going to work. We're not going to sanction two editors having a casual argument about what was X's best movie on one of their talk pages. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:19, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories heading or sub-heading

I think we should create a heading or sub-heading devoted to Trump's promotion of various conspiracy theorists. These include Obama being a Muslim, Obama not being American, climate change being a hoax invented by the Chinese, vaccines causing autism, millions of illegal aliens voting with the help of the Democrats, Ted Cruz' dad being involved in the Kennedy assassination, and so on. What say you guys? Should there be a sub-heading devoted to the conspiracy theories of Trump? Steeletrap (talk) 04:10, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

• Nope. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:12, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
• Yes, there's enough RS coverage to justify it, and he's "famously spread conspiracies and false claims" and fake news. Researchers from Princeton University, Dartmouth College, and the University of Exeter examined the consumption of fake news during the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign. Brendan Nyhan, one of the researchers, emphatically stated in an interview on NBC News: "People got vastly more misinformation from Donald Trump than they did from fake news websites -- full stop."

NBC NEWS: "It feels like there's a connection between having an active portion of a party that's prone to seeking false stories and conspiracies and a president who has famously spread conspiracies and false claims. In many ways, demographically and ideologically, the president fits the profile of the fake news users that you're describing."

NYHAN: "It's worrisome if fake news websites further weaken the norm against false and misleading information in our politics, which unfortunately has eroded. But it's also important to put the content provided by fake news websites in perspective. People got vastly more misinformation from Donald Trump than they did from fake news websites -- full stop."

Sources

BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:54, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

• No - let’s wait until after OIG presents his report. The biggest conspiracy theory thus far has been allegations of his collusion with Russia so if that’s what you have in mind, it may be worthy of its own article...but again, wait until we know what Mueller has, and what the OIG has - no rush...no deadline. Let’s get the article right. ^{Atsme📞📧} 11:06, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
• Maybe - Besides just talking about Trump's conspiracy du jour, have any RSs of any sort collected such a list? Greg L (talk) 14:15, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I just added a nonexclusive list of RS documenting Trump's telling of falsehoods and promoting of conspiracy theories to the "Deception" section above. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:51, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, and the falsehoods, alternative facts, exaggerations, misinformation, distortions (whatever), that were specifically singled out by the media are not all b&w falsehoods as explained in the NYTimes. We also need to wait for the conclusions of the Mueller probe, the OIG investigation, and the Gowdy/Nunes classified briefing of the DOJ (that had to be subpoenaed to get the FBI docs). We're in RECENTISM territory, and until all these claims have been substantiated, we should not be going beyond in-text attribution, especially as it relates to any conspiracy theories, and whether or not they're a product of "deception". There's no rush. If the purpose is to provide encyclopedic information to benefit our readers, I'm sure most would be far more interested in the dismantlement of N Korea's nuclear test site. ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:56, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Dismantlement, huh - been watching North Korean propaganda? The mountain collapsed. When your nuclear test site is kaput, suspending your nuclear testing (nice clip – courtesy of TIME – of North Korean TV anchorwoman waxing enthusiastic) isn’t much of a concession, with or without the preceding name-calling hissy fits between the two dear leaders. Also, I am not aware that Mueller, OIG, or Nunes/Gowdy are looking into - alleged, whatever - Trump falsehoods, promotions of conspiracy theories, etc. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:24, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Shhhhh...you'll have all the pro-trumpeters trumpeting that Trump secretly moved a few mountains and scared the bajeebies outta rocket man. 😂 As far as not knowing about the ongoing investigations by Mueller, OIG and Gowdy/Nunes...surely you jest? ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

And here you're misquoting me. I didn't say that I don't know about the Special Counsel investigation of Russian interference & alleged collusion by American actors, the OIG investigation of alleged FBI violations, the Nunes/Gowdy "investigation" of "alleged" misdeeds by everybody EXCEPT Trump & his campaign, I said that they're not investigating Trump's stream of falsehoods, etc. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:42, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Noop - to begin I didn't "quote" you so I couldn't possibly have misquoted you; secondly (and now I'm quoting you with my bold underline for emphasis), you said: Also, I am not aware that Mueller, OIG, or Nunes/Gowdy are looking into - alleged, whatever - Trump falsehoods, promotions of conspiracy theories, etc. In my book, "alleged, whatever" covers a lot of territory and so does "etc." ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:54, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Mention of the Russia controversy in the lead

Hey User:Objective3000, the comment says not to remove but there is not problem in doing so; Portal:Donald Trump/Intro works just well without that paragraph. Could you self revert as this is WP:UNDUE and nothing has been proven yet? L293D (☎ • ✎) 18:32, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Seems DUE considering the massive coverage in RS, 22 indictments, and all the connections to the Trump presidential campaign, whether or not direct collusion of Trump will be ultimately shown. O3000 (talk) 18:45, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I see. I'm still not convinced we should mention this incident in the lead though. It already stated in the article. L293D (☎ • ✎) 18:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the lead is supposed to include material already in the article. This material is highly significant.- MrX 🖋 19:18, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Certainly appears significant to the subject of the article, given the number of times he brings it up. O3000 (talk) 21:09, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

FYI: Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article. Further down MOS:LEADREL it says: ...although not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text. How about letting us know exactly what material is being referenced here? ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

(When starting a discussion about an editing dispute, please provide contextfor others. The discussion is for everybody, not just the two immediately involved (otherwise it could be done at a user talk page). The edits may not be at the top of the page history for long, and besides, why make people go there to find out what you're talking about? Thanks.) ―Mandruss ☎ 23:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

(L293D, the hidden comment refers to the <section end=Lead text /> tag, not the content preceding it.) ―Mandruss ☎ 23:33, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

O3000 - perhaps I've misunderstood your point, but material is not necessarily DUE simply because it received "massive coverage" and that isn't a good reason why it should remain in the article. You appear to be confusing WP:GNG with WP:V, the latter of which is pretty much all that is required for inclusion of material in an article. In fact, WP:DUE is about the representation of all significant viewpoints in RS, and that it should be represented ...in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. WP:BALANCE states: "...discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news." And you might also check out Wikipedia:Citation_overkill#In-article conflict and #Reprints in that same essay. ^{Atsme📞📧} 07:47, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

the latter of which is pretty much all that is required for inclusion of material in an article. - WP:ONUS, part of WP:V, says otherwise. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:45, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

...material is not necessarily DUE simply because it received "massive coverage".... Pretty sure there was an "and" and two additional reasons in my post. O3000 (talk) 12:00, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Hey O3000, I sort of understand this but do we need to have whole paragraph in the lead of the article for this? There is not even a mere mention of Hillary Clinton's e-mail controversy in the lead at Hillary Clinton. And the Hillary's E-mail controversy did receive significant coverage. L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:11, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't oppose having the email thing in Hillary Clinton's lead.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:24, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Last I checked, WP:NPOV still had the sentence, "but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject", ergo, massive coverage means it is due Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:24, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Disagree: (1) "massive coverage" could be the result of reprints of a wire agency report and/or reprints of a primary source article which counts as one source; (2) WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NEWSORG, WP:TOOMUCH, WP:RS AGE and NOTCRYSTALBALL, the latter of which states (my bold underline): Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view. I'm still unsure what material is being discussed in this instance, but I do know that unsupported allegations don't get a free pass just because it's published on 20 different news sites. Our job is to use editorial judgment and discretion when considering biased opinions, unsubstantiated allegations and derogatory material about a BLP, which includes not saying it in WikiVoice, especially when the source is an opinion piece, commentary or analysis. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:39, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

"massive coverage" could be the result of reprints of a wire agency report…. Well, it could be. But that has nothing to do with this case since it has been weekly, often daily, news for a year in innumerable sources. There have been 22 indictments. The subject of the article talks about it weekly. And we aren’t predicting, forecasting, or speculating about anything. O3000 (talk) 14:46, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Russia controversy in the lead: Arbitrary break

The sixth and last paragraph of the lead says:

"After Trump dismissed FBI Director James Comey in 2017, the Justice Department appointed Robert Mueller as special counsel in an investigation into coordination or links between the Trump campaign and Russian government in connection with Russian interference in the 2016 elections, and related matters. Trump has repeatedly denied any such collusion."

This appears to WP:UNDUE weight to an incident that has yet to be proven. Yes, it has received massive media coverage, but most similar incidents are not even mentioned in the lead for other articles. For example, take Hillary Clinton, there is not even mention of her e-mail controversy, even if it received massive media coverage. So do you want the paragraph to be removed? L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:01, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and for context, I initially removed the content, but was reverted but Objective3000. As I am not allowed to reinstate previously challenged material, I am posting here. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:05, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCONTENT O3000 (talk) 02:06, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

You say it's received "massive" media coverage. Then it's not UNDUE according to our content rules. SPECIFICO talk 02:08, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Emerging from my AP2 avoidance for this one point of reference: Both Clinton articles mention the Lewinsky scandal in the lead and Reagan's mentions Iran-Contra. The Russia investigation, regardless of the outcome, has arguably received more coverage and taken up more press than either of those. No opinion on it in the lead, but I thought it worth mentioning if OTHERSTUFF was going to be brought up. Now back to not commenting on anything AP2 content-wise. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

TonyBallioni, the Lewinsky scandal led to former president Clinton being impeached by the House so yes, it belonged in the lead. We don't see anything about Fast and Furious in the lead of Barrack Obama because...well, I don't quite know. I did not see mention of Iran-Contra in Reagan's lead, but keep in mind, Reagan was admonished for not knowing about it, and the conclusion of the investigations "resulted in fourteen indictments within Reagan's staff, and eleven convictions. The Trump-Russia controversy has produced -0- evidence that Trump himself was involved in any of it, but we have article after article filled with speculation and allegations that he was - apparently a partisan project that wants to impeach the guy. Ok, I'll leave you alone now. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:59, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

L293D already started a thread above on the exact same subject.Talk:Donald_Trump#revert You don't get to restart the exact same discussion in a new section. Someone uninvolved should hat this. O3000 (talk) 02:27, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll not hat it, but I'll attach it to the existing thread and improve the section headings. @L293D:, please don't create redundant threads, for reasons that should be obvious. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:14, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Doc Bornstein's office raided. Admits he didn't write health report

An example of how a lie by Trump shows up under another more credible person's name. [7][8] [9] [10]

Does anybody here believe that Doc Ronny Jackson actually weighed Trump or administered the Montreal test? SPECIFICO talk 02:03, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

So the doctor is admitting that he lied the first time, and we're supposed to believe that he's not lying now? 😂 Let it incubate. 🐓🥚🍳 ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:25, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, funny how not being under Trump's thumb allows more honesty. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:08, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Maggie Haberman: "The dictation is abnormal, a doctor agreeing to it is abnormal and a doctor talking about it is abnormal." Twitter -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:08, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh, my - here we go...CNN The person familiar with the episode described altogether different circumstances, saying the handover had been completed peacefully, complicated only by Bornstein's fumbling with his photocopy machine to make copies of the records.. Please, let the breaking news incubate 🐣. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:53, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for posting this. The anti-Trump bias here is getting old. Sovietmessiah (talk) 01:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

@Sovietmessiah: No kidding. It reminds me of a twist on a line from The Piano Man: ♬ “And the wikipedians are practicing politics, as the RSs slowly get stoned…”♬ We might soon need a subpage for how Trump was responsible for faking the Apollo moon landings on a sound stage. Greg L (talk) 03:07, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

No IReliable Source has challenged that Jackson did the tests he said he did. Your skepticism is pure opinion and Original Research. As for Bornstein, he has done himself no favors in the credibility department by his changing stories. Anything he says should be attributed to him, and if others challenge what he says, that should also be included. --MelanieN (talk) 01:59, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

It's only OR if it goes in the article. Otherwise, it's "obvious." SPECIFICO talk 03:21, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

User:SPECIFICO - you seem to have confused Bornstein with some fantasy about Jackson. Yes, most folks do believe Jackson weighed Trump and did a cognitive test. Rumors of Trump having health issues in late 2017 is sort of like the fad of Hillary being unfit due to health in late 2016. (Silly bits about her needing pillows to sit upright, stumbling, an actual head knock exaggerated, a real collapse from hiding pneumonia.) Seems just clickbait and partisan pitching doubt or distractions, but hey it's what the niche markets like so Limbaugh sold it one year and Maddow sold it the other way the following year. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:32, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Forcing Bornstein to hand over original of medical records. CNN's source, "the person familiar with the episode", actually confirms the basics of Bornstein's description of the incident: Three people with a letter, i.e., not the usual medical records release form, showed up unannounced and asked for the records, and - when a flustered Bornstein was unable to photocopy them in the next 20 minutes - Schiller (who's what - 6 ft. 5 or 6? and at the time was representing the President of the United States and accompanied by Trump Organization VP and Chief Legal Officer Alan Garten and an unknown "large man") told him to hand over the originals. The originals are the physician's property and responsibility, and coercing him to hand them over now is dictator style and not the standard operating procedure of the White House Medical Unit, as Sanders claimed (although - these days - who knows). Seems relevant enough to go into either this article or the one on the Presidency of Donald Trump. Bornstein was wrong for signing the "healthiest president ever" letter, for telling the NYT which medications his patient took, and for not telling Schiller (why was he in NY in the first place?) to come back later or the next day for the copies. However, taking Bornstein's quirky personality and the semantics out of the picture, what we're left with is abuse of power and the WH saying that there was "nothing out of the ordinary". Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I oppose inclusion as noncompliant with NOTNEWS. Leaving Bornstein's quirky personality and the semantics in, exceptional claims require exceptional sources. CNN actually gave more weight to what the source described as a peaceful exchange despite the docs fumbling to make copies. There's also the doctor's admission that he shared privileged medical information about his patient (who happens to be the president of the US) which may have violated state and/or federal laws. I read the speculation in the WaPo opinion (analysis) piece and even it was even qualified with: It may ultimately come to nothing... I oppose inclusion of this incident as breaking news (NOTNEWS). Odd that the doctor waited a year to disclose...but that seems to be a pattern with regards to Trump and people who appear to either hold a grudge after being replaced or may see financial opportunity or other form of personal gain by telling "their" he said/she said story, real or perceived. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:37, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Dear Atsme, my friend, that's ridiculous! You didn't have any problem with Dr. Ronny Jackson's horsing us about POTUS' weight at the White House presser, right? And what makes you think he weighed POTUS on a scale when every commentator has said that the weight clocked in at 16 oz. shy of "morbidly obese" or whatever the unseemly category is called, and that POTUS was demonstrably a stone or more over his previous borderline reading? I know you like horses, but... SPECIFICO talk 17:36, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

No comparison to what you're wanting to add now which is straight-up flotsam at this point in time, and noncompliant with NOTNEWS. You keep bringing up Trump's health - were you expecting a triathlete? As far as I can tell, he hasn't needed assistance to climb up or down stairs, and he hasn't been carried into the presidential limo, yet. No denying that he likes Big Macs and chocolate shakes...so? I'm not aware of any weight requirement to be president. ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:07, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

1) I have proposed no article text. Oh. 2) The issue is not health, it's lying and coercing others to lie so that ordinary journalistic modes of reporting have failed and are being reassessd by principled reporters who have come to realize they've been too willing to broadcast and amplify misinformation on behalf of POTUS. Did Doc Ronny Jackson "weigh" POTUS - like on a scale with numbers on it? SPECIFICO talk 01:14, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

No, he weighed him on a fish with scales on it. 😉 You mentioned somewhere that you were thinking about leaving political articles and writing fish articles. Good choice! You won't have to deal with NOTNEWS. There are no politician fish but there are surgeon fish, sharks and jellyfish, so it shouldn't be too drastic a change, especially considering some things will continue to smell fishy and you will still have to avoid the flotsam. ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:54, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Nothing odd about it, considering his quirky personality and the fact that the President of the United States of America came down on him with the full force of his authority (and at least two very large men - don't know the size of Garten). Nobody cares about Trump's athleticism or lack thereof (although why did he have to wait for a golf cart ride when all the other heads of state walked 700 yards from one venue to another?); lying about it – or lying about it by omission in interviews etc. – is a different matter, though not as big a deal as the strong-arming. 14 months after the NY Times interview, Bornstein's license hasn't been revoked, and Trump hasn't sued him or even threatened to sue him. Makes me wonder what else was in those files. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 05:47, 5 May 2018 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 05:50, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

off-topic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
oh for cats' sake, if this was any other president, any other politician, this - that the offices of a physician were raided to destroy "evidence" - would most certainly be included. But since it's Trump people bend over backwards to come up with ridiculous reasons like "NOTNEWS" to avoid including it. The only bias here is this inane pro-Trump cheer-leading and obfuscation.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:42, 11 May 2018 (UTC) I'm gobsmacked by the flaunting of active arbitration remedies exhibited here and elsewhere on this page. I realize this is obviously a highly contentious article, but is that really an excuse to repeatedly ignore civility and AGF restrictions? Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 15:01, 11 May 2018 (UTC) The comment is not incivil. Please stop trying to set up WP:GAME for some agitation for spurious restrictions. I mean, hell, Atsme, makes statements far worse all the time and all ya'll give her accolades for it. By comparison my poignant observation was rather mild.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:40, 11 May 2018 (UTC) 😂😂😂 VM, have you tried performing standup? Atsme📞📧 15:35, 12 May 2018 (UTC) @Volunteer Marek: The lack of regard for our policies I am seeing here is staggering. When you said this at Talk:CNN, I wanted to believe that this was just a case of an editor having a bad day, but now I see this is becoming a pattern. Our policies aren't spurious. Being civil and assuming good faith in these discussions is essential. I'm not sure what action Mr Ernie feels is appropriate here, but this behavior is totally unacceptable. He was very kind in asking you to remove your attacks, but you made it clear you have no interest in doing so. I am pinging Atsme as well, since she has a right to know when she is smeared, especially on a page subject to discretionary sections for the violating party. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 16:01, 11 May 2018 (UTC) Thanks for the ping, Mr. Daniel Plainview - I've been in and out since Tuesday (RL got in the way), and just now saw this sideline discussion. VM's collegial attempts customarily fall short of the expected, and I've long since learned that it's best not to take the bait. A funny quip comes to mind: time wounds all heels... A more succinct and updated version of the latter is called karma. Atsme📞📧 15:35, 12 May 2018 (UTC) First, the CNN comment is not "uncivil". It discusses content. Second, "AGF" is NOT a policy (essential or otherwise), it's a "behavioral guideline" (and one of the dumbest ones that Wikipedia has) and even then it is a bid nuanced then what you're pretending it is. And did I already point out that the comment you link to was all about content so "AGF" doesn't have crap to do with it? Finally, please don't accuse me of "smearing" others. Atmse, or whoever. I haven't "smeared anyone". Oh yeah, be aware that falsely accusing someone of being incivil can itself be considered a personal attack and that's what you're doing here. YOU'RE the one hijacking the conversation away from content. Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:41, 11 May 2018 (UTC) I tried to hat but messed up the template. I have asked VM to remove the comment. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:07, 11 May 2018 (UTC) Hell no. It's a very accurate and civil description of the Trump exemption in practice. That's how the pro-Trump editors work here at Wikipedia. If y'all don't want your NPOV-violating protectionism of Trump to get called out, then stop doing this. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:00, 11 May 2018 (UTC) Dear Mr. Plainview, maybe you are just gobbled due to your very short tenure here editing Wikipedia. After a few more months you'll get more comfortable and in the meantime it's best to keep on topic here and discuss DS restrictions elsewhere. SPECIFICO talk 16:21, 11 May 2018 (UTC) I don't know what "gobbled" means but are you really suggesting that I'm supposed to get comfortable with THAT? And this? No, that's simply not on. I may not be a veteran editor but I have lurked here for some time and I know what is tolerable and what isn't. By all means, if we cannot resolve this on this talk page please point me in the direction of a more suitable place to discuss the issue. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 16:32, 11 May 2018 (UTC) What exactly is suppose to be wrong with "this"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:36, 11 May 2018 (UTC) Yes, our new editors tend to think things are simple and clear-cut. At any rate, the suitable location for these concerns would be WP:AE or an Admin's talk page. SPECIFICO talk 16:57, 11 May 2018 (UTC) Marek makes good points. It's very bad to accuse colleagues of "personal attacks" where none exists This could result in an immediate block. Also these false accusations are generally a sign of an editor on the losing side of a POV crusade who is more or less out of rope. As you gain experience on WP patterns such as these will become clearer to you. SPECIFICO talk 17:53, 11 May 2018 (UTC) Characterizing good faith editing as “garbage” is not appropriate and needlessly belittling. Especially if editors are new or inexperienced. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:11, 11 May 2018 (UTC) Blatantly misrepresenting sources isn't "good faith editing". It is exactly what I called it. (And that editor is neither. The account is new. The user is not inexperienced. Hell, it's obvious they came here from [deleted]. Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:41, 11 May 2018 (UTC) Howdy Mr. Ernie! Thousands of edits are garbage every day. Millions of tons of nutritious vegetables are garbage every day. I did not see anybody call any of our colleagues "garbage." But I regularly see struggling editors falsely accuse colleagues of "personal attacks." SPECIFICO talk 19:59, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

• Based on what I've seen in the sources I think about a half sentence for the bit about Trump dictating the letter would be reasonable weight. Looking at the info currently in the Health section I'd suggest an edit to the current 2nd paragraph along these lines: During the 2016 presidential campaign Trump's personal physician, Harold Bornstein, released a glowing letter of health, which he later said Trump himself had dictated, praising Trump for extraordinary health, physical strength, and stamina. A second and less hyperbolic medical report from Bornstein showed Trump's blood pressure, liver, and thyroid function to be in normal ranges. On the raid of Bornstein's office I don't know where that would fit in the article and I would hesitate to include it at all without seeing more significant coverage. ~Awilley (talk) 06:39, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Awilley, how about just saying released a letter of good health and if the superlatives must be included, use in-text attribution rather than Wikivoice? I guess folks over 60 may have a tad more appreciation for someone in their golden years to be enjoying good health...but letters don't glow. 😊 ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:35, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean about in-text attribution rather than Wikivoice. Do you mean putting quotes around words like "extraordinary"? I think the most notable thing about the letter was how over the top it was (test results were "astonishingly excellent" and he would unequivocally be "the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency" etc.). I'm fine with any wording that conveys that, and I'm definitely not married to "glowing". ~Awilley (talk) 16:30, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Slight edit Alternative B More succinct and making clear that Trump, not the MD, released the letter to the press:

During the 2016 presidential campaign Trump released a hyperbolic and superlative-laden letter signed by his personal physician, Dr. Harold Bornstein, praising Trump for extraordinary health, physical strength, and stamina. In the face of skepticism from the press, Bornstein insisted that he was the author of the letter. In April, 2018, Bornstein stated to the press that Trump had dictated the letter.

SPECIFICO talk 17:02, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Awilley, 1st statement of fact = "His physical strength and stamina are extraordinary,” read the letter, which Bornstein had initially said he wrote himself. 2nd statement of fact (same source) = "He dictated that whole letter. I didn't write that letter," Dr. Harold Bornstein told CNN. "I just made it up as I went along." So which one do we believe, and how much weight do you think is appropriate for this un-encyclopedic rant by an ex-doctor the media has shown to be lying? I only know half of what I see, and it appears to me Trump has a helluva lot more energy than some of my guy friends who are 20 years younger. The article is already full of needless trivia - so who really cares about this insignificant piece of trivia? Jiminy Cricket - what happened to sound editorial judgment? It was newsworthy as a bait-click revenue headline but it's not encyclopedic. It probably has far more relevance on the doctor's BLP rather than here. Trump passed his physical - good to know - what's next? ^{Atsme📞📧} 05:39, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@Atsme, apologies, I'm having trouble following your argument. You say "1st statement of fact = ..." and then say something that is not clearly a fact. Also, I don't think the health of your friends has any relevance here. And are you saying we shouldn't mention the doctor at all? Perhaps you could make a specific proposal for what you think the article should say, or list specific things you'd like the article to say or not say?

@Specifico, That kind of works for me, but I think it places too much emphasis on Bornstein's different stories. The things I think should be conveyed by the two sentences are, roughly in order of importance: 1. Trump's health indicators are normal. 2. Trump wants people to think that he is in astonishingly excellent health. 3. Trump was able to influence his doctor to make absurd claims in an official letter of health. #2 and #3 are best left for the reader to intuit (rather than us stating them explicitly). Also there is no "4: Trump's doctor lied and recanted". Based on this, what would you think about this:

During the 2016 presidential campaign Trump's personal physician, Harold Bornstein, released a superlative-laden letter of health—which he later said Trump himself had dictated—praising Trump for extraordinary health, physical strength, and stamina. A second and less hyperbolic medical report from Bornstein showed Trump's blood pressure, liver, and thyroid function to be in normal ranges.

~Awilley (talk) 16:35, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Good 'un, but what purpose does it serve our readers? Is the purpose to compare what different doctors have said about Trump's health, or is the purpose to inform our readers that 2 different doctor exams have shown him to be in good heath? I say stay away from guessing at what Trump wanted people to think or what the discussion between Trump & his doctor was about. WP should not be analyzing the thoughts of our BLPs, and certainly not based on what Bornstein said. If consensus determines his health exams need to be included, let's throw-in his TV interview with Dr. Oz, the Bornstein results, and of course, White House Physician Ronny Jackson....or we could just add a sentence or two and say medical professionals who examined Trump determined that he was physically fit to serve as president...which is all that really matters anyway. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:42, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

PS: Awilley apologies for being tardy in clarifying my statements. You stated above: "You say "1st statement of fact = ..." and then say something that is not clearly a fact." The "statement of fact" I was referring to was the fact the letter exists and actually does read: "His physical strength and stamina are extraordinary," - it's verifiable by clicking on the NYTimes link and reading the 1st letter, 12-4-2015. 2nd statement of fact was with reference to the fact that Bornstein's statement was quoted by RS as follows: "He dictated that whole letter. I didn't write that letter," Dr. Harold Bornstein told CNN. "I just made it up as I went along." I am not speaking to the truth of the quote itself, rather I'm referring to its verifiability, initially having been published in a CNN "exclusive" (primary source in this case). ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

So, @Awilley: it appears to me that you could put your latest version into the article and we can close this thread out. SPECIFICO talk 16:20, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Support - ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:21, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Real estate - Swifton Village, Cincinnati

Galobtter I think the Cincinnati Enquirer converted the occupancy rates they reported in their 2002 article (400 rented, 800 vacant) to percentages in their 2016 article which I removed because it was based largely on Trump's claims at Ohio campaign events and in "Art of the Deal", and also because, 14 years later, the Swifton Village maintenance man's memories had shifted a bit. I kept the wording "100%", though, because in 2002 the maintenance man also said, "In less than two years, there wasn't a vacancy." Maybe changing the wording to "boosted the occupancy rate to full" might be better? I wasn't too happy with "revitalizing" either because the sources don't actually mention more than a renovation but they probably spent big bucks on attracting tenants, as well, so I left it. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:03, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

• Perhaps, I just added the source as if the text is going to be "100%" sourcing should remain to support that. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:05, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

So you would have no objection to me removing the source again and using "full" instead of "100%"? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:10, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:17, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Racial Views/"Birtherism"

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

---

Apologies if this has been addressed already (the archive is gargantuan), but why is the Obama birth certificate controversy nestled under the "Racial views" section? What does the former president's birthplace have to do with race? Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 01:25, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Nothing. And it should be moved to an appropriate, pertinent section. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:39, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Many believe (and there was actually a big discussion on this recently elsewhere on Wikipedia - can't remember where) that when Trump pushed the Birther thing, hinting at a "foreign" background for Obama, he knew full well he was tapping into the racist views of many Americans. Whether it showed that Trump himself is really racist on this front is unclear, but he was certainly using the Birther controversy as a racist tool. HiLo48 (talk) 01:49, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)"hinting at a "foreign" background for Obama" He does have a "foreign background". His father was Kenyan and Obama lived in Indonesia for many years. "he knew full well he was tapping into the racist views of many Americans" And you know this because you can read his mind? Because you have a direct quote from a reliable, verifiable source where he said it? Of course, the answer to this is 'no' for both questions. Don't speculate and please be aware of BLP policy for article talk pages. "Whether it showed that Trump himself is really racist on this front is unclear" It's unclear because you are making the scenario up. "he was certainly using the Birther controversy as a racist tool." Bullshit. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:57, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your wisdom. I needed that re-education. HiLo48 (talk) 02:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Winkelvi, please don't WP:CRYBLP. You're dealing with experienced editors here and it is pointless. SPECIFICO talk 02:04, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

When an editor is blatantly violating policy, it's the responsibility of other editors to remind them about the policy they are violating. Experience obviously has nothing to do with it, otherwise he wouldn't be violating BLP TPG, would he? Experienced drivers violate the law daily - does that mean they shouldn't be warned or ticketed? Give me a break. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:10, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Do you really think nobody had racist views against Obama? Do you really think nobody had those views reinforced by the Birther controversy? Do you really believe Trump is so stupid he had no idea it would have that effect? Do you think it bothered him? Don't be silly. This is about politics. I know how it works. I suspect you do too. HiLo48 (talk) 02:22, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

It is generally considered to be a racist conspiracy theory. The reasoning is that the theory gained traction among people who did not believe that a non-European could be a real American. In fact, former Republican candidates George Romney, John McCain and Ted Cruz were all born outside the United States, but it never inspired a movement. TFD (talk) 01:53, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

What reliable source (non-editorial piece) states that birtherism is racist? I recall Hillary Clinton pushing that narrative[11] during the election, but I don't see how this placement can be seen as NPOV. Inserting this material underneath material about "Racial views" (which probably shouldn't even be in the article in the first place, honestly) makes no sense. Black people live in, and are born in, Hawaii. Barack Obama is a great example of a black person from Hawaii. There are also plenty of white people in Kenya. Unless Donald Trump specifically linked skin color or race with Obama's place of birth, this material needs to be relocated to comply with NPOV - otherwise we have an OR/SYNTH situation on our hands. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 02:16, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:OR\WP:SYNTH is exactly what it is. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:24, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Do you really think nobody had racist views against Obama? Do you really think nobody had those views reinforced by the Birther controversy? Do you really believe Trump is so stupid he had no idea it would have that effect? Do you think it bothered him? Don't be silly. This is about politics. I know how it works. I suspect you do too. HiLo48 (talk) 02:23, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

"Do you really think nobody had racist views against Obama? Do you really think nobody had those views reinforced by the Birther controversy? Do you really believe Trump is so stupid he had no idea it would have that effect? Do you think it bothered him?" None of these things have anything to do with this article if you don't have a reliable source and/or direct quotes to back it all up. So please stop pretending it does (or thinking it does). If you want to believe all this, fine. But your personal feelings aren't reliable sources. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:26, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I have some news for you. Politicians don't always tell the truth, not even those you (or I) adore. Any sensible human being thinks about what is going on when politicians make declarations. I am amused at your trusting view that Trump didn't have intentions or was unaware of the racist implications of the Birther thing. Seriously, he is not that stupid. HiLo48 (talk) 02:31, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I haven't given my viewpoint on the issue one way or another. I've only given my viewpoint on whether or not it's been proven that Trump's search for Obama's birth certificate was racially motivated. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:41, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

That is not now nor has it ever been consensus among the editors on these articles. SPECIFICO talk 02:20, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue consensus and I don't think a formal RfC should be called, but if it is, I'll cast my iVote. This issue has already been argued. Just a tip of the hat to TFD - hope all is well - just wanted to mention that I recall quite a bit of hoopla surrounding the requirements of other candidates: The Atlantic on Cruz; New Yorker; Fordham Law Review rethinking presidential eligibility, and more. The preponderance of evidence tells us the questioning of birth right was a political maneuver, not a racist one so it depends on what RS are cited...and that's why exceptional claims require exceptional sources and in-text attribution. ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:27, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Holy cow. [12][13][14][15] This is tendentious POV pushing in the extreme. Andrevan@ 02:33, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Two opinion pieces, one article not about Trump but one of his picks for a position, and an unreliable source. You'll have to do better than that, Andrevan. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:45, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

"Birtherism, as it became known, was denounced as a racist dog-whistle by critics — and Trump publicly renounced the position in September, 2016, while campaigning to be president, before falsely claiming his presidential rival Hillary Clinton had first spread the theory in 2008." [16], [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] Andrevan@ 02:57, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

The Newsweek link clearly states, "Birtherism, as it became known, was denounced as a racist dog-whistle by critics — and Trump publicly renounced the position in September, 2016". It doesn't state Trump's motivation was racism. Nothing in the Rolling Stone article proves Trump's motivation behind finding Obama's original birth certificate to be racism. Nothing in the PBS piece proves or even alludes to Trump's motivation re: Obama's birth certificate to be racism. Nothing in the Chicago Tribune article has any proof that Trump's motivation was racism - there's one mention in it that Colin Powell calls Trump a racist. Powell's quote is not a reliable source or proof of anything other than Powell having an opinion. The Psychology Today article is an opinion piece, therefore, not a reliable source regarding this issue. The Science Direct piece doesn't even mention Trump. The Journal link with abstract and theory by Pham is opinion, not proof. So far, you're striking out in providing proof that Donald Trump's motivation in the search for Obama's birth certificate to prove his citizenship that would qualify him to be a candidate for president was racism. We're still looking at WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:14, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

No. The RS clearly describe birtherism as racism. We don't need to get inside Trump's head to know his true soul. Andrevan@ 03:19, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

No, it's you who is striking out. And providing reasons for a topic ban. The manner in which you respond, and ask for 'proof', shows that there is no amount of 'proof' that would satisfy you. You are Tendentious and disruptive. Dave Dial (talk) 03:25, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Wanting to keep the article free of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH and asking for reliable sources that support unproven claims as to what the article subject's motivation was for his participation in wanting to see Barack Obama's original birth certificate is grounds for a topic ban? Sorry, I'm not following your line of reasoning. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:32, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment -- At this point, editors arguing that birtherism doesn't belong in racial views, or that it had nothing to do with racism, are trying to insert Fringe views. There are more than enough reliable sources describing britherism as racial. If editors wish to have this article handled in a different manner than it has been, keep trying to push fringe bullshit. Next stop is probably ArbCom anyway. Dave Dial (talk) 02:34, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Really? What reliable sources will support Trump's search for Obama's birth certificate to prove his citizenship that would qualify him to be a candidate for president as racism in a definitive and proven manner? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:40, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

• The influence of racism on birtherism has been heavily covered by RS for many years. It makes no sense to ignore this. O3000 (talk) 02:41, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

It may have been "covered", but unless it's been proven, it's a violation of WP:SYNTH. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:45, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

• If anyone has an alternative suggestion as to the subject heading to discuss this content (which I feel does need to be discussed), please suggest it. Otherwise, this seems acceptable to me. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:57, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

"Role in Barack Obama birth certificate controversy" would be a significant improvement. A nice and neutral title, and probably a trim would be in order for WEIGHT issues. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 03:17, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

No. That title is not an improvement, it is a whitewash, unsupported by sources. (I doubt if you will find any news story referring to the subject as the "Barack Obama birth certificate controversy"; it is called Birtherism both because that is short for headlines and because there really wasn't any "controversy".) We take our titles from Reliable Sources, and there is no getting around that this particular claim was called Birtherism everywhere. --MelanieN (talk) 03:27, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) with MelanieN As a subsection of "Political career and affiliations up to 2015"? I'd support that, but I'm not confident enough there would be consensus for that to WP:BOLDly change it without discussion. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:23, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Here we go again. Please see Archive 78, Archive 77, Archive 73, Archive 21, etc. We have discussed this to death. The most recent discussion, now in Archive 78, was a formal discussion with a formal close. That close showed a consensus that material about birtherism is appropriate for the Donald Trump article and should remain here. The closer left it open whether to keep that material under “Racial views” or move it to “Political career and affiliations up to 2015”, with the default being to keep it in Racial views because it is there now. We can discuss, here, where in the article to put the material since there was no consensus at the last discussion. Whether birtherism has racial roots is not open to question, we have long since settled that. Birtherism emphasized Obama as the “Other” and challenged his right to be president, and that was very appealing to a lot of the Republican “base” for purely racial reasons. Whether Trump himself promoted birtherism out of personal racism, or simply because it was working for him in the polls and ratings, is undetermined. That was one of the reasons given for possibly moving the birtherism material to the campaign section. --MelanieN (talk) 03:22, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

There are many RS that allege it is part of a history of racism including the Central Park Five incident. Andrevan@ 03:23, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose content in racism section, as it is unproven in regard to Donald Trump; support it being placed in the campaign section, but with no alluding it has to do with racism on the part of Trump. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:25, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Comment my personal opinion is that the claims that Obama is not "African-American" are based in the fact that most people assume African-Americans are the descendants of slaves, while Obama's father was a Kenyan immigrant and his mother was Caucasian. This isn't particularly relevant to the encyclopedic content of this article. I'm somewhat disturbed that we still need to argue this point; reliable sources are clear Obama was born in Hawaii, which is a State of the United States. The fact that Donald Trump prominently advocated an argument to the contrary is notable, as it was a political position which somewhat directly led to his presidential run (you can find a link to the 2011 White House Correspondent's Dinner on your own). Whether this is a "racial view" or a "political view" is a dispute I really don't care enough to argue either way; the material must be included in the article in a section about something other than his business career or presidency but I can't be bothered to care where. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:31, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Rather than debate the content (that's another issue, in my mind), we should move it to the "Political affiliations" section or the campaign section. The material's current location is implying a falsehood in Wikipedia's voice, and is a point of view held by Trump's detractors. Arguments like "we can put it in there because I know what's in Trump's soul" are invalid, and I am bewildered how an administrator and bureaucrat could ever make that argument for content. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 03:41, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

• Mr Plainview, if you had arrived 11 days ago you could have !voted in the RfC that reached no consensus on this question. I don't think the addition of !votes by you, Winkelvi, Andrevan, and/or ten other randomly selected editors would have made a difference in the outcome. I do think another RfC would be needed, and I know 11 days is far too soon to do that. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:53, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
• You completely misunderstood my argument. I said we don't need to know if Trump had a motive or was simply accidentally being racist. Andrevan@ 03:56, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

If that's not what you meant, then I'm completely confused by why you seem to have felt it necessary to show his motive and prove his motives were racist with all the links you provided above. That, and your statement now, really do seem to be completely contradictory. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:59, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Trump is a racist and birtherism is racist, period full stop, because the majority of the RS describe them as such. Doesn't matter if we've "proven" that Trump himself has a racist brain in his skull. Understand now? Andrevan@ 04:04, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Trump has the best brain. A big, bold, beautiful brain. If that beautiful, bready, burgundy brain is racist, we should have Reliable Sources to that effect. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:07, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

BLP policy is getting roughed up good and proper today. Yes, now I see what a problem those "tendentious POV-pushers" can be on these pages, who you referred to earlier. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 04:10, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I think we have some editors here who would still argue that Trump isn't racist even if he said "I am a racist, and I used Birtherism as a racist tool." No politician will say that about themselves, so we follow what the sources say. HiLo48 (talk) 04:12, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Mandruss, I would have voted in that discussion had I seen it. At the outset of this section I stated that I apologize in advance if this has already been discussed. But is an RfC even necessary for this kind of blatant policy conflict? BLP policy states that flagrant policy violations (such as referring to a living person as a "racist") can be removed immediately without discussion. Here we have an absurd placement of content in a biography, that states without much subtlety that Trump is a racist for questioning if Obama was telling the truth about being born in Hawaii. No facts. Just opinions. But we still need an RfC to fix that, for some reason? Something is broken. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 04:16, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

That's the rub, isn't it? We follow what the sources say. Not what Colin Powell says. Not what Hillary Clinton says. Not what a 24 year old editorial writer at the Observer says. We create content based on what is verifiable and factual. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 04:16, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

We of course do have tons of reliable sources linked above, and many more, that describe Trump's policy, rhetoric, etc. as racist. We can of course cover minority views and his own statements that he is "the least racist person you ever met" or whatever, but BLP doesn't mean this majority held consensus is somehow invalid SYNTH or OR. Follow the sources. Andrevan@ 04:17, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

No editor has to prove "intent", that's neither a requirement to answer you nor policy. If people spout off about how the Holocaust didn't happen and the Jews are running some racket, we don't have to prove what's in that person's mind to say that they are spouting anti-semitic canards. Just like we don't have to prove what's in Trump's mind when he spouted off about the racist Birtherism bull. And people that don't understand how it's racist show their true selves. Luckily, we don't have to rely on what is in people's heads, we go by reliable sources. The overwhelming amount of reliable sources state that birtherism is a racist conspiracy theory. Full stop. Dave Dial (talk) 04:18, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Now it's Trump's policies that are racist? That's not what you said here. Which is it? Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 04:19, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

You only have 500 edits since November so I'm guessing you haven't figured out how things work here. The majority of the sources address birtherism as a Trump race relations issue. There were already past discussions on the topic which settled the consensus that birtherism and racism are connected in Trump's biography. There's no rule that living people who are racist, such as David Duke for example, can't be described as such if the sources say they are. Andrevan@ 04:31, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Andrevan, you only have 500 edits in the last three years. For all you/we know, Daniel has been editing as an IP and "figured out how things work here" quite a while ago. In fact, he knows this talk page and the article has specific and numerous arbitration remedies, something you didn't seem to know just 24 hours ago until someone pointed it out to you. All that in mind, do you think you should be looking down at their number of edits as a non-IP account? Please, remember WP:FOC, okay? As far as your claims that reliable sources state Birtherism + Trump = Racism, that's opinion. It's still not proven nor do you have a direct quote from Trump that would label him as such. No matter how many times you or anyone else will claim it is/does. It really doesn't matter what you or I or anyone else thinks about Trump's views on race relative to this article. Why? Because we're all supposed to adhere to BLP, RS, SYNTH, and OR policy. Can we just forget that this is a politically-based article, drop the differences in the way of personal political beliefs, stop attacking each other based on assumptions of who believes what and votes for whom, and just get back to writing an unbiased and un-agenda-ized encyclopedia. Pretty please? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 04:50, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

The consensus is settled here and "it's not proven" is not the consensus. That's the relevant point. Andrevan@ 04:56, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

(responding to Plainview 04:16 UTC) Most Wikipedia policy is necessarily vague and open to interpretation. You have your interpretations, others have theirs. You feel your interpretation is crystal clear and self-evident, as do your opponents. The "correct" interpretation is decided by consensus and there is no higher court. If that is not sufficient, then something is in fact broken, and Wikipedia is largely a failed proposition. For the time being I choose to believe that it's sufficient enough. The current consensus on this question is "no consensus", which means leaving the status quo. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:32, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

"A balanced view does not need to be a sympathetic view – our article on Adolf Hitler does not portray him as a sensitive and misunderstood individual who was kind to his mother – but it does need to reflect the balance of opinion among reputable authorities." WP:BALASPS Andrevan@ 04:46, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Trump is not Hitler. The comparison is disproportionate, irrelevant, and off-topic as well as inappropriate. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 04:53, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Godwin himself of Godwin's Law fame said his law doesn't apply to Trump. Regardless, it's the example cited in Wikipedia policy. I didn't write it. (Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing#One_who_assigns_undue_importance_to_a_single_aspect_of_a_subject)Andrevan@ 04:56, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

If BALASPS WP:TE intended for the principle to be restricted to individuals like Hitler, it would have very little utility as a principle. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:05, 26 May 2018 (UTC) I have notified WP:TE that its BALASPS shortcut box is incorrect. Use the above wikilink instead. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:35, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

By the way, Plainview, my !vote in the RfC was consistent with your position, but the fact that I lost doesn't make me support another bite at the apple after only 10 days. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:52, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

personal disparagement — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs) 11:29, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
According to Andrevan, we don't need to get inside Trump's head to know his true soul. Gosh, I didn't know that some Wikipedians had such psychic powers! — JFG talk 10:24, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, this has already been addressed extensively. It would be much less of a resource drain for the OP to actually read the archives, the sources, the noticeboard discussions, and spinoff article rather than for all of us to WP:REHASH this.- MrX 🖋 12:21, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

• Note that User:Mr. Daniel Plainview, who started this thread and made a dozen subsequent comments in it, has been blocked as a sock of Hidden Tempo. Their comments have been struck. --MelanieN (talk) 15:42, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Right, which speaks even louder for a close of this thread, which "Hidden Plainview" started and which revisits an issue covered by an RfC closed about 10 days ago. If they hadn't blatantly violated policy we wouldn't be here, and to allow this to continue is to reward that and encourage more of it. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:47, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, now the comments have been unstruck, but the problem of sockpuppetry remains. I agree with Mandruss that this discussion should be closed soon, since it was started and urged along by a sock. --MelanieN (talk) 15:57, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

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