Golfpecks256 (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 856: | Line 856: | ||
:::The informality of the term is the issue, and has been raised. It's not a neutral term, as it implies that something bad has happened. [[User:Onetwothreeip|Onetwothreeip]] ([[User talk:Onetwothreeip|talk]]) 04:38, 29 July 2019 (UTC) |
:::The informality of the term is the issue, and has been raised. It's not a neutral term, as it implies that something bad has happened. [[User:Onetwothreeip|Onetwothreeip]] ([[User talk:Onetwothreeip|talk]]) 04:38, 29 July 2019 (UTC) |
||
* "Hush money" is not a neutral term. It carries with it certain connotations that we're all aware of and would be pointless to deny. (Aren't the negative connotations the exact reason why people are fighting to keep it in? Anyway.) It doesn't matter that a RS says it. In a BLP, especially in one so politically contentious as this, we should ensure that when Wikipedia is speaking, it must be as neutral as possible. This doesn't mean that the actual meat of the article needs to be changed. [[User:Cosmic Sans|Cosmic Sans]] ([[User talk:Cosmic Sans|talk]]) 12:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC) |
* "Hush money" is not a neutral term. It carries with it certain connotations that we're all aware of and would be pointless to deny. (Aren't the negative connotations the exact reason why people are fighting to keep it in? Anyway.) It doesn't matter that a RS says it. In a BLP, especially in one so politically contentious as this, we should ensure that when Wikipedia is speaking, it must be as neutral as possible. This doesn't mean that the actual meat of the article needs to be changed. [[User:Cosmic Sans|Cosmic Sans]] ([[User talk:Cosmic Sans|talk]]) 12:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC) |
||
::What connotations am I aware of and denying? That hush money is hush money and not salary or payment for the sale of an item or work performed ? What else do you call a bribe but a bribe (that's the formal term)? Quoting Scjessey, "hush money payments" is neutral, accurate and well-sourced. The women said they had affairs with Trump, they were paid hush money as confirmed by Cohen, AMI, and the documents presented to the courts, Trump denied. Those are the facts, not whether or not Trump had an affair. Legal issue, nondisclosure agreement, nondisclosure payment, campaign finance payments, that's legalese to fudge the issue in the title, i.e., sanitize it. Campaign finance violations - I can think of several but this section deals with the hush money payments. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Public_figures WP:PUBLICFIGURE]: {{tq|BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article. ... Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. It is denied, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should state only that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that the affair actually occurred.}} The title needs to reflect the content of the section, not deflect from it. Deflecting is non-neutral and biased. [[User:Space4Time3Continuum2x|Space4Time3Continuum2x]] ([[User talk:Space4Time3Continuum2x|talk]]) 13:55, 29 July 2019 (UTC) |
|||
'''123ip''', you've been editing on WP '''regularly''' (MONGO, I think this is what Mandruss meant by "regular editors," nothing to do with "page ownership") for longer than I have, so consider the following my informed personal interpretation of WP guidelines. |
|||
*In a complex article like this where content has been and is being discussed at length, it's inconsiderate (I'm being polite here) to remove subsection titles, turn the subsections into single paragraphs, and "move[] [them] to top of section" (which is the only change your edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&oldid=908204588 summary] mentioned, a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Edit_summary#What_to_avoid_in_edit_summaries no]-no), |
|||
*then [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&oldid=908219694 change] the title "Hush payments" to "Legal issues" while it's being discussed on the Talk page and without mentioning the change in the summary, |
|||
*and then move the renamed section + "Russian interference" + "Protests" from "Presidency" to "2016 campaign" with a summary saying "moved legal issues, moved protests." |
|||
*I may have been wrong about the citations (why are some of them highlighted?), had to do a lot of scrolling just to get an overview of the edits. |
|||
*If you want to go bold, do it one item at a time and with a proper summary so other editors can see what you have done and why, if for nothing else than common courtesy. |
|||
*Do not go bold on items under discussion, even if—in '''your opinion'''—they are inappropriate or redundant. Trump is a very [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Public_figures public figure], so well-sourced, appropriate, and DUE are very low bars to clear (we did it by saying "alleged affairs" and "he denied"). The editors of this article have to live with a lot of what they consider to be crap, as this Talk page and its 102 archives show ample evidence of. If you can't do that, you should consider not editing this and possibly other articles on current US politics. |
|||
*{{tq|We are here to present the facts dispassionately and we should not imply that something is controversial}} - no, we're not, we {{tq|simply [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Public_figures document] what [the reliable published sources] say}}. We do not editorialize, we do not imply, but we also do not sanitize or whitewash. |
|||
*{{tq|"Hush money" has already been dealt with, as far too informal and salacious.}} 5 editors supported the title "Hush money payments" because RS, 3 objected on the basis that it is too informal and/or not appropriately neutral. Does not sound like "case closed" to me (well, maybe if you're William Barr). [[User:Space4Time3Continuum2x|Space4Time3Continuum2x]] ([[User talk:Space4Time3Continuum2x|talk]]) 13:55, 29 July 2019 (UTC) |
|||
=== New approach === |
=== New approach === |
Revision as of 13:55, 29 July 2019
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Readership | |
Donald Trump was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Other talk page banners | |
Highlighted open discussions
Current consensus
NOTE: It is recommended to link to this list in your edit summary when reverting, as:[[Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensus|current consensus]] item [n]
To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to .
official White House portrait as the infobox image. (Dec 2016, Jan 2017, Oct 2017, March 2020) (temporarily suspended by #19 following copyright issues on the inauguration portrait, enforced when an official public-domain portrait was released on 31 October 2017)
1. Use theQueens, New York City, U.S.
" in the infobox. (Nov 2016, Oct 2018, Feb 2021) "New York City" de-linked. (September 2020)
gaining a majority of the U.S. Electoral College" and "
receiving a smaller share of the popular vote nationwide", without quoting numbers. (Nov 2016, Dec 2016) (Superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)
Oct 2016) In the lead section, just write: Removed from the lead per #47.
Forbes estimates his net worth to be [$x.x] billion.
(July 2018, July 2018)
Many of his public statements were controversial or false." in the lead. (Sep 2016, February 2017, wording shortened per April 2017, upheld with July 2018) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019)
without prior military or government service
". (Dec 2016)
Include a link to Trump's Twitter account in the "External links" section. (Jan 2017) Include a link to an archive of Trump's Twitter account in the "External links" section. (Jan 2021)
10. Keep Barron Trump's name in the list of children and wikilink it, which redirects to his section in Family of Donald Trump per AfD consensus. (Jan 2017, Nov 2016)
12. The article title is Donald Trump, not Donald J. Trump. (RM Jan 2017, RM June 2019)
13. Auto-archival is set for discussions with no comments for 14 days. Manual archival is allowed for (1) closed discussions, 24 hours after the closure, provided the closure has not been challenged, and (2) "answered" edit requests, 24 hours after the "answer", provided there has been no follow-on discussion after the "answer". (Jan 2017) (amended with respect to manual archiving, to better reflect common practice at this article) (Nov 2019)
14. Omit mention of Trump's alleged bathmophobia/fear of slopes. (Feb 2017)
Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, …"). Accordingly the pre-RfC text (Diff 8 Jan 2017) has been restored, with minor adjustments to past tense (Diff 11 Feb 2018). No new changes should be applied without debate. (RfC Feb 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017, Feb 2017) In particular, there is no consensus to include any wording akin to "losing the popular vote". (RfC March 2017) (Superseded by local consensus on 26 May 2017 and lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017)
Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current president of the United States. Before entering politics, he was a businessman and television personality." The hatnote is simply {{Other uses}}. (April 2017, RfC April 2017, April 2017, April 2017, April 2017, July 2017, Dec 2018) Amended by lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017 and removal of inauguration date on 4 July 2018. Lower-case "p" in "president" per Dec 2018 and MOS:JOBTITLES RfC Oct 2017. Wikilinks modified per April 2020. Wikilink modified again per July 2020. "45th" de-linked. (Jan 2021)
Wharton School (BS Econ.)", does not mention Fordham University. (April 2017, April 2017, Aug 2020, Dec 2020)
20. Mention protests in the lead section with this exact wording: His election and policies
(June 2017, May 2018) (Note: In February 2021, when he was no longer president, the verb tense was changed from "have sparked" to "sparked", without objection.)
have sparked numerous protests.
22. Do not call Trump a "liar" in Wikipedia's voice. Falsehoods he uttered can be mentioned, while being mindful of calling them "lies", which implies malicious intent. (RfC Aug 2017)
Trump ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, citing security concerns; after legal challenges, the Supreme Court upheld the policy's third revision.(Aug 2017, Nov 2017, Dec 2017, Jan 2018, Jan 2018) Wording updated (July 2018) and again (Sep 2018).
25. Do not add web archives to cited sources which are not dead. (Dec 2017, March 2018)
26. Do not include opinions by Michael Hayden and Michael Morell that Trump is a "useful fool […] manipulated by Moscow"
or an "unwitting agent of the Russian Federation"
. (RfC April 2018)
27. State that Trump falsely claimed
that Hillary Clinton started the Barack Obama birther
rumors. (April 2018, June 2018)
28. Include, in the Wealth section, a sentence on Jonathan Greenberg's allegation that Trump deceived him in order to get on the Forbes 400 list. (June 2018, June 2018)
29. Include material about the Trump administration family separation policy in the article. (June 2018)
30. Supersedes #24. The lead includes: "Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist.
" (RfC Sep 2018, Oct 2018, RfC May 2019)
31. Do not mention Trump's office space donation to Jesse Jackson's Rainbow/Push Coalition in 1999. (Nov 2018)
32. Omit from the lead the fact that Trump is the first sitting U.S. president to meet with a North Korean supreme leader. (RfC July 2018, Nov 2018)
33. Do not mention "birtherism" in the lead section. (RfC Nov 2018)
34. Refer to Ivana Zelníčková as a Czech model, with a link to Czechs (people), not Czechoslovakia (country). (Jan 2019)
Trump has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency. The statements have been documented by fact-checkers, and the media have widely described the phenomenon as unprecedented in American politics.(RfC Feb 2019)
37. Resolved: Content related to Trump's presidency should be limited to summary-level about things that are likely to have a lasting impact on his life and/or long-term presidential legacy. If something is borderline or debatable, the resolution does not apply. (June 2019)
38. Do not state in the lead that Trump is the wealthiest U.S. president ever. (RfC June 2019)
39. Supersedes #21 and #36. Do not include any paragraph regarding Trump's mental health or mental fitness for office. Do not bring up for discussion again until an announced formal diagnosis or WP:MEDRS-level sources are provided. This does not prevent inclusion of content about temperamental fitness for office. (RfC Aug 2019, July 2021)
40. Include, when discussing Trump's exercise or the lack thereof: He has called golfing his "primary form of exercise", although he usually does not walk the course. He considers exercise a waste of energy, because he believes the body is "like a battery, with a finite amount of energy" which is depleted by exercise.
(RfC Aug 2019)
41. Omit book authorship (or lack thereof) from the lead section. (RfC Nov 2019)
42. House and Senate outcomes of the impeachment process are separated by a full stop. For example: He was impeached by the House on December 18, 2019, for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. He was acquitted of both charges by the Senate on February 5, 2020.
(Feb 2020)
43. The rules for edits to the lead are no different from those for edits below the lead. For edits that do not conflict with existing consensus: Prior consensus is NOT required. BOLD edits are allowed, subject to normal BRD process. The mere fact that an edit has not been discussed is not a valid reason to revert it. (March 2020)
44. The lead section should mention North Korea, focusing on Trump's meetings with Kim and some degree of clarification that they haven't produced clear results. (RfC May 2020)
46. Use the caption "Official portrait, 2017" for the infobox image. (Aug 2020, Jan 2021)
47. Do not mention Trump's net worth or Forbes ranking (or equivalents from other publications) in the lead, nor in the infobox. (Sep 2020)
48. Supersedes #45. Trump's reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic should be mentioned in the lead section. There is no consensus on specific wording, but the status quo is Trump reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic; he minimized the threat, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, and promoted false information about unproven treatments and the availability of testing.
(Oct 2020, RfC Aug 2020)
49. Supersedes #35. Include in lead: Trump has made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics.
(Dec 2020)
50. Supersedes #17. The lead sentence is: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021.
(March 2021), amended (July 2021), inclusion of politician (RfC September 2021)
51. Include in the lead that many of Trump's comments and actions have been characterized as misogynistic. (Aug 2021 and Sep 2021)
52. Supersedes #23. The lead should contain a summary of Trump's actions on immigration, including the Muslim travel ban (cf. item 23), the wall, and the family separation policy. (September 2021)
53. The lead should mention that Trump promotes conspiracy theories. (October 2021)
54. Include in the lead that, quote, Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in U.S. history.
(October 2021)
55. Regarding Trump's comments on the 2017 far-right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia
, do not wiki-link "Trump's comments" in this manner. (RfC December 2021)
56. Retain the content that Trump never confronted Putin over its alleged bounties against American soldiers in Afghanistan
but add context. Current wording can be altered or contextualized; no consensus was achieved on alternate wordings. (RfC November 2021) Trump's expressions of doubt regarding the Russian Bounties Program should be included in some capacity, though there there is no consensus on a specific way to characterize these expressed doubts. (RfC March 2022)
57. Do not mention in the lead Gallup polling that states Trump's the only president to never reach 50% approval rating. (RfC January 2022)
58. Use inline citations in the lead for the more contentious and controversial statements. Editors should further discuss which sentences would benefit from having inline citations. (RfC May 2022, discussion on what to cite May 2022)
59. Do not label or categorize Trump as a far-right politician. (RfC August 2022)
60. Insert the links described in the RfC January 2023.
61. When a thread is started with a general assertion that the article is biased for or against Trump (i.e., without a specific, policy-based suggestion for a change to the article), it is to be handled as follows:
- Reply briefly with a link to Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias.
- Close the thread using
{{archive top}}
and{{archive bottom}}
, referring to this consensus item. - Wait at least 24 hours per current consensus #13.
- Manually archive the thread.
This does not apply to posts that are clearly in bad faith, which are to be removed on sight. (May 2023)
62. The article's description of the five people who died during and subsequent to the January 6 Capitol attack should avoid a) mentioning the causes of death and b) an explicit mention of the Capitol Police Officer who died. (RfC July 2023)
63. Supersedes #18. The alma mater field of the infobox reads: "University of Pennsylvania (BS)". (September 2023)
64. Omit the {{Very long}}
tag. (January 2024)
65. Mention the Abraham Accords in the article; no consensus was achieved on specific wordings. (RfC February 2024)
Consensus sought re Mental Health guidelines
Looking for an explicit discussion and more specific guidelines re mental health remarks within the article, to expand (or replace) the recent edits on Talk:Donald_Trump#Current_consensus #21 and #36.
Of particular current interest is whether the article section Donald_Trump#Health_and_lifestyle should:
- Limit/Not limit it to generic summary of existence on such concerns being stated
- Include/exclude naming specific conditions and/or name the behaviour but do not make a diagnosis to specific mental disease
- Include/exclude opinions of mental health professionals who have not examined him, e.g. by name and/or quote
- Include/exclude opinions of non-medical individuals, e.g. prominent instances with name and/or quote
- Include/exclude specific mention of book(s) The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump and/or caveats the book states or opponents state
- Include/exclude specific mention of online petition(s), e.g. by source and/or quotes
- Include/exclude general responses by Trump, e.g. with/without quote
- Include/exclude any specific review/criticism of opinions by third parties
- Any other specific actions or guidance
Background
The recent BLPN led to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Health of Donald Trump, with the conclusion was to close that article and merge content from Health of Donald Trump into here. Direction from the AfD was to discuss it here.
So a couple weeks ago first there were hasty edits here adding various things with some against the guidance #21, then there was a jump to presumption that #21 had to be changed to make that legal giving us a generic guide #36 'have a para' that doesn't give much in the way of guidance about content. (There's been some ongoing flux as to what that para is.) I'm also feeling procedurally that wasn't a clean closure and fundamentally that what wasn't discussed simply isn't a proper WP:CONSENSUS.
The AfD further remarks here and tangle of discussions under Talk:Donald_Trump#Merger_of_Health_of_Donald_Trump have some remarks offered, but are not succinct collection or apparent as agreed to.
Previously the TALK had arrived at :
Consensus 21. Omit any opinions about Trump's psychology held by mental health academics or professionals who have not examined him. link1, link2.
Link1 Strongly opposed a proposal for one sentence - mentioning timesump, armchair analysis, speculation, contrary to norms in other BLPs, NPOV, BALASP, SOAPBOX, and V of Goldwater rule precludes good RS.
Ping to Link1 participants (in order of appearance) : User:Carbon Caryatid, User:SPECIFICO, User:Objective3000, User:Mandruss, User:Markbassett, User:Power~enwiki, User:Snow_Rise, User:JFG
Link2 Opposed armchair diagnosis for ANY living person - mentioning POV, BLPVIO, no reliable source, speculation, and EXCEPTIONAL. So not based on the Goldwater rule but the effect seems similar.
Ping to Link2 participants (in order of appearance) : User:BullRangifer, User:Hidden_Tempo, User:PackMecEng, User:Objective3000, User:Zbrnajsem, User:MelanieN, User:Tataral, User:Mandruss, User:JFG, User:The_Wordsmith
Currently the list scratched out #21 and instated
Consensus 36. Include one paragraph merged from Health of Donald Trump describing views about Trump's psychology expressed by public figures, media sources, and mental health professionals who have not examined him. (link 1)
Ping to Link1 participants for this one (in order of appearance): User:MrX, User:Tataral, User:Scjessey, User:bd2412, User:MelanieN, User:TParis, User:JFG, User:MONGO, User:Atsme, User:Starship.paint
Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:11, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Survey
- Include non-medical individuals and online
surveyspetitions, as the generic concern has demonstrated actual public relations effects/reactions, which is an actual life impact. Any voicing by prominent (e.g. Congress) seems also an actual relationship impact, but do not go into speculation of potentials for impeachment. Exclude or give very little attributed to 'medical professionals' as that is giving false information in a false sense of medical authority. Do mention there was such asurveypetition or book as way to show the concern is publicly stated, but limit it to mention and don't go into these multiple lines naming the author and quotes from it. (There are links to where it belongs -- it doesn't belong here.) Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:56, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
- Go with what consensus stated - the medical professionals who did not examine him should be given little weight. I just researched the following statement in the article: "In April 2017 more than 25,000 mental health professionals signed a letter stating they believe Trump "manifests serious mental illness" and it's cited Footnote 107 to Psychology Today. The petition was handled by Change.org but the majority of the signers are unverifiable - they could be signatures from voters who are still angry over their candidate losing - we have no way of verifying that information. If there is a way, then feel free to correct me. I view it's inclusion as an embarrassment to have such speculative detail in the pedia in light of recent consensus at the AfD. Since this is a health issue, I have notified Project Med advising them of this discussion. Atsme Talk 📧 16:34, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
- Concur as to the petition, except for the embarrassment part. I see no indication of any controls on the petition, aside from the request to "please state your degree" (excuse me if I don't take their words for it). Flimsy. I'd remove that sentence. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:54, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
- That sort of unverifiable list of petitioners is akin to the same kind of lists generated by those who refute the scientific consensus on climate change or ones I used to see of those who refute the federal investigations into the 9/11 attacks. So, yes, that should be stricken.--MONGO (talk) 17:31, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
- User:Atsme - I revised the phrasing to 'petition' from when starship asked me about 'survey' (oops) and tried to correct the article miscopy in dubbing from the Health article. It was in the Health article section from his political opponents. Is the current language better ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:20, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
- Speedy Close Request speedy close. We discussed this and came to a consensus. It's documented. We're not going to keep rehashing every week until certain people get the result they want. Try again in a year.--v/r - TP 02:22, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
- User:TParis Umm not an RFC. Otherwise ... what is the consensus specifics that you are referring to ? Does it for example give a specific phrasing or any guidance about online petitions ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:24, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
- It doesn't need to. Please don't be disruptive by trying to rehash an argument that has already run its course because you don't like the result.--v/r - TP 04:13, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
- User:TParis I have asked for discussion for specifics missing in the generic ‘add a paragraph’. Please stop with incorrect statements like “we discussed this” and labeling a call for discussion as “disruptive”. If you truly think the specifics above were covered, prove it by stating how/where you see them. Otherwise just let discussion proceed. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:04, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oh good lord. We don't owe you anything to whatever degree you demand answers. The paragraph has been written and agreed to. Knock it off.--v/r - TP 03:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- User:TParis Nope, you don’t owe me answers ... nor false statements either. The five paragraphs put in and later edits were by BOLD moves and the MelanieN proposal did not remain. Often the consensus are on specific wording, other times on principles guiding content. With only ‘add a para’ it seems anything goes and not really a consensus by discussion so I ask for what there may be. Please cease false statements and objection to block TALK. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:25, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not blocking anything. I don't see anyone willing to engage with you. I see many people stating there is already a consensus on this and some are confused why you are starting this conversation again when it just ended. You're the only one who doesn't believe there is already a consensus. You've had 9 people comment, 5 who opposed rehashing the discussion. Three of the remaining four are opposed to your proposal. You're wikilawyering what consensus means and it's disruptive. I'm urging you to stop because it'll lead us to Arbitration Enforcement.--v/r - TP 01:57, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- User:TParis you can see by being unable to find/show prior answers to the questions raised, there was not any consensus on such specifics that this thread is asking about. I believe there is obviously a #36, and that equally obviously it was only a general ‘add a para’ not specific of wording/content nor stating guidance principles. Please cease personal attacks on my motives and false statements about the topic. I am simply asking for further discussion on such details as may be available. As was mentioned within the discussion about consensus. As #36 neither mandates or precludes much of anything, I’m asking for discussion to get whatever further thoughts may be. Meanwhile what is written seems to say that four of the five new paras are open to delete, and any edit at all is allowed in the one para. If you WANT that, or think that was the consensus, then just say so. If not, state what the consensus specifics you believe were stated and where, or what thoughts you wish. But stop making vague denials and allegations about my motives or intent. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:51, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not blocking anything. I don't see anyone willing to engage with you. I see many people stating there is already a consensus on this and some are confused why you are starting this conversation again when it just ended. You're the only one who doesn't believe there is already a consensus. You've had 9 people comment, 5 who opposed rehashing the discussion. Three of the remaining four are opposed to your proposal. You're wikilawyering what consensus means and it's disruptive. I'm urging you to stop because it'll lead us to Arbitration Enforcement.--v/r - TP 01:57, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- User:TParis Nope, you don’t owe me answers ... nor false statements either. The five paragraphs put in and later edits were by BOLD moves and the MelanieN proposal did not remain. Often the consensus are on specific wording, other times on principles guiding content. With only ‘add a para’ it seems anything goes and not really a consensus by discussion so I ask for what there may be. Please cease false statements and objection to block TALK. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:25, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oh good lord. We don't owe you anything to whatever degree you demand answers. The paragraph has been written and agreed to. Knock it off.--v/r - TP 03:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- User:TParis I have asked for discussion for specifics missing in the generic ‘add a paragraph’. Please stop with incorrect statements like “we discussed this” and labeling a call for discussion as “disruptive”. If you truly think the specifics above were covered, prove it by stating how/where you see them. Otherwise just let discussion proceed. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:04, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- It doesn't need to. Please don't be disruptive by trying to rehash an argument that has already run its course because you don't like the result.--v/r - TP 04:13, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
- User:TParis Umm not an RFC. Otherwise ... what is the consensus specifics that you are referring to ? Does it for example give a specific phrasing or any guidance about online petitions ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:24, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
- Speedy Close - we have discussed this, and all that needs to happen now is for editors to abide by consensus. Atsme Talk 📧 03:13, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
- Mark, I considered it a local survey which is a step down from a formal AfC. I've already mentioned the sentence about the unverifiable petition above - delete it. Shorten the book info per DUE - reduce it to a single sentence and WikiLink to the book. The first sentence in that section already provides a summary of the armchair opinions. Readers can read the wikilinked book, or watch Trump on TV and form their own opinions. They're probably just as reliable as an armchair diagnosis. Atsme Talk 📧 04:27, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
- User:Atsme - ‘Reduce Dangerous Case to first sentence and wikilink to book’, OK, done. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- speedy close per two editors above--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:49, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Discussion
- Respect all the consensus - keep #21 AND keep #36 - it seems a false dichotomy that one couldn't respect BOTH AfD and Consensus 21; ditto to me one can come up with a para per #36 that does not break #21, so respect all the considerations (a line from WP:CONSENSUS) and keep all the consensus. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:39, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Is this a 9-part RfC? R2 (bleep) 05:57, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Markbassett was told told above to "stop trying to relitigate the AfD." I didn't understand half of this section, it's written in a way that is just likely to wear people out, and I don't see a need for this discussion. We just agreed on a new consensus, summary of the consensus, and text that has been included in the article. There is no need for a rehash of the entire debate now. --Tataral (talk) 12:52, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
- User:Tataral This is looking for statements of guidance. There aren't any or discussion about them much, so nothing to 'relitigate'. There was a loose liking for a MelanieN proposal, but it wound up not one of the 5 paragraphs that are in there at the moment. The consensus #36 seems just saying 'have a paragraph' -- and edits seem deleting 2 paragraphs and inserting 6 paragraphs. Anyway, without some specifics re what content guidance it seems you or I could put anything in or delete anything there. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:19, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
I didn't receive a ping, Markbassett, even though you mentioned my user name. What's this about online surveys? Before [1] Health of Donald Trump was redirected, is there any mention of an online survey? And yes, maybe this is too complex. starship.paint (talk) 13:45, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, it's "petition" not "survey" ... I will fix it. Markbassett (talk) 02:25, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
- None of those pings were sent—there was no signature in the edit that added them. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:54, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
- User:Mandruss Thanks, I'll try to fix that. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:04, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
- User:MrX You reverted multiple edits in one go, including this correction; I will reinstate it. As mentioned here, the cite does not support the wording shown -- saying petition (not 'letter') at change.org, and mentioned not assured of actually being mental health professionals. And this is the initial bit on the item out of the Health article, I'm instead using the conclusion of 41,000 signatures sent to Congress. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:47, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- User:Mandruss Thanks, I'll try to fix that. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:04, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
- It`s much too complex. 107.217.84.95 (talk) 18:40, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
I won’t be editing much for a while. May not return. Just a note. starship.paint (talk) 00:48, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Markbassett why did you ping me? I'm happy to opine about a specific content proposal but I have no interest in a tl;dr discussion about god knows what.- MrX 🖋 02:24, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
- User:MrX You were a participant in past discussion on mental health content guidelines so ping you as this may relate to your pirior concerns. If you've no longer an interest in doing content guidelines is up to you. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:10, 29 June 2019 (UTC).
I'm confused and I just want to sit by the pool and drink cocktails. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:09, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, me too, although po folk like me have to settle for bathtub and fruit juice. This one feels like people just walked away from it, and the consensus is hard to discern and seems largely de facto in nature. That's not how I like to see things, but who am I to complain? ―Mandruss ☎ 15:25, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Mark, in your recent edit where you said you were reducing the info about the book, you also deleted the sentence where Trump responds to comments about his mental health. I thought we had consensus to include that. MelanieN alt (talk) 16:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- User:MelanieN - (sorry for delay, I didn’t see a ping on this) I don’t think so ... nothing I spotted said include that remark in archive 100 discussion ‘what is the current consensus’. That section had MelanieN describing the consensus #36 as not locking in specific wording, and thinking we should state consensus on the TYPE of thing we can say in this para.
- I note the para does not yet include describing views of public figures and media about President Trump’s mental health as phrased at consensus #36, but that particular snippet seems not what was meant nor Trump intended as the sole public figure. The public figures remarks seem the questions/declarations from the prior Health article and not meaning what Trump said. In the cite that bit actually is not the RS lead given as his general response (‘declared he was perfectly sane and accused his critics of raising questions to score political points’) nor his response to Dangerous Case which the text wording might be misread as. It seems part of a tweet referring to the election as proof of competence ‘won the presidency on his first try, that would qualify as genius and a very stable genius’. Anyway, it was deleted from the discussion in Survey Atsme wanted the book part ‘reduce it to a single sentence’ which seemed about the text read as 3 sentences about it. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:25, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- I have restored the consensus version of this material. It should not be changed unless there is an overriding consensus to do so (not just the same one or two editors who dissented to the first consensus). - MrX 🖋 02:28, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- MrX, it looks to me as if Mark removed [2] part of your “consensus restoration”, including a sentence about the book’s conclusions, as well as the sentence where Trump responds. His edit summary was reduce book coverage to 1 line and wikilink per TALK at “Consensus sought re Mental Health guidelines”. Mark, could you please explain where you “sought consensus re Mental Health guidelines” and what was said? In the meantime I am going to restore Trump’s defense of his own mental health, since you said nothing about that in your edit summary; possibly deleted by accident. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:42, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, Markbassett deleted that sentence twice: [3][4] I don't see that a new consensus has been reached, so I think he has some explaining to do.- MrX 🖋 00:54, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- User:MelanieN ? Umm... re ‘please explain where you’ ? you started by saying the answer as given in edit comment “per TALK at “Consensus sought re Mental Health guidelines”.” That is the title of the thread we are currently TALKing in. More specifically the Talk about it was in the Survey subsection, from Atsme desire to reduce the Dangerous book section to one line. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:38, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- Markbassett, please don't make significant changes to the consensus wording unless you form a new consensus with at least as many participants.- MrX 🖋 12:21, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- User:MrX That’s not a viable notion and one not generally acceptable/accepted — I think #36 itself failed to meet that. Also, the TALK for #36 said no specific language and for later discussion, so specific language is not in #36 and this notion would be contrary to #36 backstory. Otherwise, observe this *is* seeking general discussion of whatever as #36 TALK mentioned discussion on specifics - and it has pinged everyone in the multiple links of consensus #21 and #36 to get whichever input on the points of concern from those previously involved. Only way to seek getting more input would seem RFCs. RFCs to me seem right if a specific item surfaces. Are you thinking a general call would be a better approach for inputs ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:54, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- We should all strive for clarity in our communication with one another. If you will simply propose the change in a clear, limited scope discussion, I'm sure we can determine if your proposed text has consensus. It's as easy as "Should we change "xxx" to "yyy"? Cheers. - MrX 🖋 16:51, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- User:MrX Not a thread about me proposing. The thread is looking for an explicit discussion and more specific content guidance re mental health, to expand (or replace) the recent edits on current consensus #21 and #36. The talk behind #36 said specifics would be discussed, so I’m trying to get some of that discussion to happen. In the Survey section, put whatever edit specific notions you may have. At the moment, looks like no specifics other than ‘one paragraph’. The consensus #36 did not include specifying a guideline or a specific wording as other numbered consensus did. That allows almost anything - Edits could be material not from the Health article, the other four added paras could be deleted, the Fury book might be added, the Dangerous book might be deleted — it has all been done & open to the BOLD approach. So go ahead with either Survey talk or edits. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:43, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
- We should all strive for clarity in our communication with one another. If you will simply propose the change in a clear, limited scope discussion, I'm sure we can determine if your proposed text has consensus. It's as easy as "Should we change "xxx" to "yyy"? Cheers. - MrX 🖋 16:51, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- User:MrX That’s not a viable notion and one not generally acceptable/accepted — I think #36 itself failed to meet that. Also, the TALK for #36 said no specific language and for later discussion, so specific language is not in #36 and this notion would be contrary to #36 backstory. Otherwise, observe this *is* seeking general discussion of whatever as #36 TALK mentioned discussion on specifics - and it has pinged everyone in the multiple links of consensus #21 and #36 to get whichever input on the points of concern from those previously involved. Only way to seek getting more input would seem RFCs. RFCs to me seem right if a specific item surfaces. Are you thinking a general call would be a better approach for inputs ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:54, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- Markbassett, please don't make significant changes to the consensus wording unless you form a new consensus with at least as many participants.- MrX 🖋 12:21, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- MrX, it looks to me as if Mark removed [2] part of your “consensus restoration”, including a sentence about the book’s conclusions, as well as the sentence where Trump responds. His edit summary was reduce book coverage to 1 line and wikilink per TALK at “Consensus sought re Mental Health guidelines”. Mark, could you please explain where you “sought consensus re Mental Health guidelines” and what was said? In the meantime I am going to restore Trump’s defense of his own mental health, since you said nothing about that in your edit summary; possibly deleted by accident. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:42, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
The main discussion on this subject, with extensive discussion and good participation, was the now-archived Merger of Health of Donald Trump about how to carry out the merge. Mark's followup section here, “Consensus sought re Mental Health guidelines”, has had much less participation and it does not replace the main discussion. (I think TParis and Tataral spoke for most of us on that score; there was little participation in the new discussion because we all thought the issue had been settled.) The consensus version at that earlier discussion included a second sentence about the book’s conclusions which Mark/Atsme decided to remove, but I will say I am OK with removing it. That version also included Trump’s own description of his mental health; no discussion or consensus here has said to leave it out, but Mark has removed it twice. Isn't it policy that if we report negative material or criticism of a living person, we also include their response? Do I now have to open still another separate discussion, about whether to retain Trump’s description of his own mental health (which was formerly agreed to), or can it now remain in the article? -- MelanieN (talk) 16:19, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- User:MelanieN Feel free to do separate topics, though it seems within this thread Survey scope at the Atsme remark is the place with discussion already started. Also feel free to note prior edits BOLDly flowed, and not resulted in specifics followed nor larger guidelines stated so... by your own posts in Archive 100 just about everything seems intentionally left open to more of that.
- As to the line itself... just doesn’t seem to actually do an honest WP:BALANCE nor to fairly present a Trump response to Dangerous Case. The cited NY Times article describes his general response as declaring he was perfectly sane and accused his critics or raising questions to score political points. The notion of showing Trump response does not seem served by instead OR selection/trimming a partial quote out of context a tweet about his winning the presidency being proof of genius that seems a response countering separate stupidity charges in “Fire and Fury”. The juxtaposition in article may appear as if it is a response to Dangerous Case, when instead the NY Times cite places this close behind “Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House” and months after “Dangerous”. Whether one should also show BALANCE with counter views as the NYTimes does with Conway (e.g. “The never-ending attempt to nullify an election is tiresome”) has it’s own questions of should it be a later paragraph or a second line on each or what overall limits on QUOTEFARM should be. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:49, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- Our article cites TWO publications which questioned his mental health, and there have been others which we did not mention. Clearly he was responding to the totality of such comments; there is no basis for regarding it as a response just to the book. The reference cited for “very stable genius” is from January 2018, when he tweeted this, so not likely to be taken as a response to a book published in October 2017. Anyhow, Trump has said that more than once. I have added a second reference, from May 2019. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:30, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- [User:MelanieN|MelanieN]] The article however does not state any of that - inste it gives part of the Fire and Fury response as if it is a response to the topic. That's a false portrayal by putting it after the stated items of the online petition and Dangerous Case or the conditions narcissism, delusion, and dementia. But since it is a snipped response to Fire and Fury assertions of chaos and stupidity, speaking the morning after that book release to the assertions made, it is just not related to them. "Stupid" may be a claim about mental fitness, but it is not a mental health issue. To correct the false portrayal, one might sy the context of 'In response to Fire and Fury', and/or include a more accurate portrayal of the tweets below, ... or just drop the line as not relevant to the section.
- Jan 6, 2018 07:19:10 AM Now that Russian collusion, after one year of intense study, has proven to be a total hoax on the American public, the Democrats and their lapdogs, the Fake News Mainstream Media, are taking out the old Ronald Reagan playbook and screaming mental stability and intelligence.....
- ....Actually, throughout my life, my two greatest assets have been mental stability and being, like, really smart. Crooked Hillary Clinton also played these cards very hard and, as everyone knows, went down in flames. I went from VERY successful businessman, to top T.V. Star.....
- ....to President of the United States (on my first try). I think that would qualify as not smart, but genius....and a very stable genius at that!
- So, how to make it better ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:36, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- That is a non-issue. It is just your idea that it (falsely) appears to be a response to Dangerous Case or to any other specific thing. That's not how the paragraph is constructed. Every sentence is standalone, unrelated to the previous sentence. Trump is responding to the entire universe of people questioning his mental health, including the items you quote, and that is what our final sentence does. --MelanieN alt (talk) 18:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- User:MelanieN mmm... I’m seeing the tweet as clearly not a general response, nor does the sentence standalone unless it adds a lead clause of what it’s about. The tweet is the morning of Fire and Fury, RS state it is his response to that book. And intelligence is just not a response to the text named issues narcissism/delusions/dementia, but is a response to Fire claiming he’s stupid. In the very NYT cite used it makes a different statement about his general response to things is, which could be stated. If you do not view my offered choices for edit as distinctly better, is there one you at least feel is about as good ? (Say the tweet as his response to Fire&Fury, give the NYT description of his general response, drop the line...). RSVP, Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:35, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
- That is a non-issue. It is just your idea that it (falsely) appears to be a response to Dangerous Case or to any other specific thing. That's not how the paragraph is constructed. Every sentence is standalone, unrelated to the previous sentence. Trump is responding to the entire universe of people questioning his mental health, including the items you quote, and that is what our final sentence does. --MelanieN alt (talk) 18:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- User:MelanieN. Haven’t heard further from you on correction/improvement preferences. The tweet is not a response to the article text Dangerous nor the article mentioned online survey — the juxtaposition perhaps misleading. It is the morning after Fire and Fury and RS say it is a response to those assertions of chaotic and stupid, and the cite gives a different description of what they feel his general response is. SO... your earlier response seemed to think the unstated year apart will mean readers don’t get misled, and that the tweet is a general response despite the cited article. Can you provide some proposed text and/or cite? Otherwise — before I try another edit on it - other than delete I’ve offered other possibles, so would you have a second-best like or acceptable feel for any of: giving what the cite actually says is general response, or to add a clarifying lead that the tweet is about Fire, show the full tweet, or some combination ? RSVP Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:36, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
- Mark, I’m out of town and cannot log in with my main acvount, so I only saw this by accident. I will be better able to respond in a few days. Offhand my thought is: since you are so hung up on his timing or motivation for that one tweet, I can just delete that reference and replace it with others that are not a response to anything in particular - since he has said this often. It is his opinion of his own mental status and abilities, and per BLP he is entitled to have his view represented. MelanieN alt (talk) 15:42, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
- User:MelanieN OK, pick this up when you get back. I'll be interested to see if you find Trump using the phrase before 5 January 2018, but while I think you may be able to find some third party confusions by Google or some secondary mentions of it by Trump, it seems clear that wider use later does not change the origin -- similar to "alternative facts" for example. Pending any agreement to delete the whole, I will put in an intermediate edit from the selections above that keeps the phrase, and adds the Fire and Fury basis as a placeholder to pick up from. Again, the edit wanted was deleting down to one line for Dangerous Case "User:Atsme - ‘Reduce Dangerous Case to first sentence and wikilink to book’, OK, done." If you want to bump this to the mentioned separate discussion (or a RFC) remains an option, but I think it can be worked here. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:02, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- Mark, as early as 2016 he was claiming that "I have one of the great temperaments. I have a winning temperament."[5] You went ahead and tied that January 2018 comment to Fire and Fury, but that creates a false impression as if it was the only time he ever said that and only in response to allegations. I think we need to mention that he has repeated the "very stable genius" boast multiple times since then, spontaneously and not in response to anything. Like the third reference, which is from May 2019 and is NOT a response to Fire and Fury. The latest example was just last week.[6] -- MelanieN (talk) 17:04, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- User:MelanieN That ‘elected shows genius and stable genius at that’ is a response to Fire&Fury is just simple fact. Later reruns of “very stable genius” are not the origin. It also seems likely any such are of minor note so not having the WEIGHT of coverage that the first usage had. To say otherwise would be false history and not giving DUE proper prominence. For comparison, would you accept editing “alternative facts” to delete mention of Kellyanne [and instead give a portrayal that it was about a law case of 2019? Cheers [User:Markbassett|Markbassett]] (talk) 03:43, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- Mark, as early as 2016 he was claiming that "I have one of the great temperaments. I have a winning temperament."[5] You went ahead and tied that January 2018 comment to Fire and Fury, but that creates a false impression as if it was the only time he ever said that and only in response to allegations. I think we need to mention that he has repeated the "very stable genius" boast multiple times since then, spontaneously and not in response to anything. Like the third reference, which is from May 2019 and is NOT a response to Fire and Fury. The latest example was just last week.[6] -- MelanieN (talk) 17:04, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- User:MelanieN OK, pick this up when you get back. I'll be interested to see if you find Trump using the phrase before 5 January 2018, but while I think you may be able to find some third party confusions by Google or some secondary mentions of it by Trump, it seems clear that wider use later does not change the origin -- similar to "alternative facts" for example. Pending any agreement to delete the whole, I will put in an intermediate edit from the selections above that keeps the phrase, and adds the Fire and Fury basis as a placeholder to pick up from. Again, the edit wanted was deleting down to one line for Dangerous Case "User:Atsme - ‘Reduce Dangerous Case to first sentence and wikilink to book’, OK, done." If you want to bump this to the mentioned separate discussion (or a RFC) remains an option, but I think it can be worked here. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:02, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- Mark, I’m out of town and cannot log in with my main acvount, so I only saw this by accident. I will be better able to respond in a few days. Offhand my thought is: since you are so hung up on his timing or motivation for that one tweet, I can just delete that reference and replace it with others that are not a response to anything in particular - since he has said this often. It is his opinion of his own mental status and abilities, and per BLP he is entitled to have his view represented. MelanieN alt (talk) 15:42, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
- [User:MelanieN|MelanieN]] The article however does not state any of that - inste it gives part of the Fire and Fury response as if it is a response to the topic. That's a false portrayal by putting it after the stated items of the online petition and Dangerous Case or the conditions narcissism, delusion, and dementia. But since it is a snipped response to Fire and Fury assertions of chaos and stupidity, speaking the morning after that book release to the assertions made, it is just not related to them. "Stupid" may be a claim about mental fitness, but it is not a mental health issue. To correct the false portrayal, one might sy the context of 'In response to Fire and Fury', and/or include a more accurate portrayal of the tweets below, ... or just drop the line as not relevant to the section.
- Our article cites TWO publications which questioned his mental health, and there have been others which we did not mention. Clearly he was responding to the totality of such comments; there is no basis for regarding it as a response just to the book. The reference cited for “very stable genius” is from January 2018, when he tweeted this, so not likely to be taken as a response to a book published in October 2017. Anyhow, Trump has said that more than once. I have added a second reference, from May 2019. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:30, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
This section is effectively superseded by one below. Recommend we close it. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:29, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Economic policy
The following paragraph was removed from the article in favour of one that had existed previously.
Economic growth has continued during Trump's term as president. To stimulate growth, his economic policies have largely centred around tax cuts and deregulation, which he has credited for economic growth as high as 2.9% in his second year, although rates of job creation and weekly earnings have been lower than during the four years preceding his presidency.[575] The unemployment rate has also continued declining, to below 4%, amid relatively low inflation,[576] while the Dow Jones Industrial Average increased 25.9% during Trump's first two years in office.[577]
This was the paragraph that was restored.
The economic expansion that began in June 2009 continued through Trump's first two years in office, although it did not accelerate as Trump had promised during his campaign. Trump had asserted that a policy of tax cuts and deregulation would result in 3% annualized GDP growth, and perhaps much higher, but it reached a high of 2.9% in his second year, while the average growth rates of job creation and inflation-adjusted weekly earnings were considerably lower than during the preceding four years. Economists were nevertheless impressed with the continued strength of the economy nearly ten years into its expansion, as the unemployment rate continued declining, to below 4%, amid only modest inflation. The Dow increased 25.9% during Trump's first two years in office, the second best performance of any president since Gerald Ford, exceeded only by Barack Obama's 48.6% gain.[577][578][579][580][581]
I tried to preserve as much as I can but the latter paragraph makes a number of encyclopaedic and factual errors which misrepresent economics. For example, there is little utility in characterising periods of expansions as simply periods between recessions, which is really all that can be meant by an economic expansion since June 2009. It is much clearer and more precise to simply say that economic growth has continue into Trump's presidency, and it also avoids the needless implicit and explicit comparisons to the previous president that are made in the latter paragraph. There is such imperfect language throughout that paragraph, but this gives an indication of what's happening.
The former paragraph may not be the final version and may not be perfect, but goes a long way in presenting the content more encyclopaedically and less like an editorial analysis, and neither being promotional of Trump or Obama. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:26, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- I have to agree. Opinions should be omitted as much as possible when presenting statistics. As such, statements like "Economists were wowed" and "Trump promised x, but that did not happen," as well as implying whose economy is better, are not acceptable. And of course, the latter paragraph is, as you said, excessively complicated and verbose, let alone POVy.
Gamingforfun365 01:40, 15 July 2019 (UTC)- The edit does not contain "opinions." soibangla (talk) 20:17, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- Whatever. When I want to read about how the economy performed under Trump, I find statements like "Economics were nevertheless impressed" wasteful and literally uncalled for. The tone is such that it provokes a feeling of rhetorical sensationalism or influence—a stronger feeling relative to the former paragraph—and I thought encyclopedias were supposed to be "boring" and professional, not "fun" and rhetorical. I like how everyone (me included sometimes, admittedly) uses partisan politics instead of Wikipedia policies to handle controversial situations, and in seeing that discussing this more is not going to get us anywhere, I will move on.
Gamingforfun365 06:31, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- Whatever. When I want to read about how the economy performed under Trump, I find statements like "Economics were nevertheless impressed" wasteful and literally uncalled for. The tone is such that it provokes a feeling of rhetorical sensationalism or influence—a stronger feeling relative to the former paragraph—and I thought encyclopedias were supposed to be "boring" and professional, not "fun" and rhetorical. I like how everyone (me included sometimes, admittedly) uses partisan politics instead of Wikipedia policies to handle controversial situations, and in seeing that discussing this more is not going to get us anywhere, I will move on.
- The edit does not contain "opinions." soibangla (talk) 20:17, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- I agree that Onetwothreeip's edit is far superior and eliminates the editorializing found in the other version. A reminder though, this article is to be written in American English, so "centred" should be "centered". We can thank or cuss out Webster for this.--MONGO (talk) 01:58, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- I did warn you that my version wasn't perfect! That is simply an inadvertent mistake on my part. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:13, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- The edit does not contain "editorializing." soibangla (talk) 20:17, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- Much prefer Onetwothreeip as better generally, drop opinions and etc, but think wording could be worked further. Suggest unrevert to newer version and Talk edits to that.
- I prefer the first clause “The economic recovery that began in 2009” for context, might even make it “The economic recovery from the Great Recession that began in 2009”. To only say ‘continued the recovery’ leaves an open question of from when.
- Agree drop the whole ‘he promised 3% and we got 2.9%’ pfft.
- Agree second line, reordered to “His economic policies have largely centred around tax cuts and deregulation to stimulate growth”
- Disagree with then comparing to the last 4 years of Obama. This is about a Trump economic policy or events in his term, not a contest.
- Agree with the line of unemployment below 4% and low inflation. Might mention unemployment hitting record lows in some areas.
- Agree with dropping economists opinion.
- Agree with dropping comparison of Obama stock market . Again, this is about Trump term, and not a contest. (Comparing 8 years to 2 ?.)
- Agree with mention of the stock market, but the major surge or Trump bump was an event and not about two years. Besides, we’re over 30 months now so a 2 year mark seems odd.
Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:49, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- The problem with a recovery since June 2009 is that it implies the recovery is still ongoing. There is really no attempt in economics to determine when an economy has finally recovered in terms of economic growth, but the economy has certainly finished recovering since then. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:13, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- How is the recovery over if there is no attempt to determine when an economy has recovered ? 2600:1702:2340:9470:DCE3:E34F:A3DE:89F5 (talk) 17:12, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- There is different measures that one could use to identify the start or end of a recovery from a recession. In reality it's not as simple, and the economy gradually withdraws from what could be considered a recovery and transitions into an otherwise normal period. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:06, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- I am absolutely gobsmacked that you would say my edit is
very poor in explaining economics
and containsfactual errors which misrepresent economics
and then proceed to write that utterly nonsensical edit. This episode may be the most surreal experience I've ever had on Wikipedia. Just mind-blowing. soibangla (talk) 20:38, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- How is the recovery over if there is no attempt to determine when an economy has recovered ? 2600:1702:2340:9470:DCE3:E34F:A3DE:89F5 (talk) 17:12, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- “The economic recovery from the Great Recession that began in 2009” The phrase would leave it ambiguous whether it was the recovery or the recession that started in 2009.
- The problem with a recovery since June 2009 is that it implies the recovery is still ongoing. There is really no attempt in economics to determine when an economy has finally recovered in terms of economic growth, but the economy has certainly finished recovering since then. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:13, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- "Agree with the line of unemployment below 4% and low inflation. Might mention unemployment hitting record lows in some areas." Should there be a link to the article Jobs created during U.S. presidential terms? So far the list credits Trump with 11,169 jobs created during his term. This is the second-best result in the entire list, following Bill Clinton's two terms. Dimadick (talk) 18:54, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- Not really sure it should be in this article, or just the presidency one. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- Onetwothreeip - OK, then "The economic expansion that began when The Great Recession ended in 2009" Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:37, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
The edit contains no "factual errors which misrepresent economics." soibangla (talk) 20:17, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
which he has credited for economic growth as high as 2.9% in his second year
Readers ask: "is that number better or worse than he said it would be, due to his policies?" But the edit provides no guidance. Because "he has credited," it suggests he at least hit his promised number, but actually he hasn't. Shouldn't readers know that? Of course they should.
- Except that it did hit 3.1% this year, so yes the promised number was exceeded microscopically. But really, comparing back to a speech seems just a long stretch for some way to complain about good news -- whereas a proponent would point to an increasing trend during his term. I'd rather just state the fact of what it is and leave out the contortions and spincraft, thanks. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:49, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- It hit 5.1% and 4.9% in two consecutive quarters of 2014. Did Obama have 3% growth? Of course not. GDP bounces around, one quarter means nothing. Here's the real data. soibangla (talk) 00:27, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- In this case it means the sniping criticism from ~6 months ago is no longer true. Markbassett (talk) 20:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- I don't know what that even means, but I do know you have previously made a point that Obama's GDP never hit 3%, despite hitting 5.1% in one quarter, but now that Trump is president you point to one 3.1% quarter to assert that he actually has hit 3%. soibangla (talk) 23:06, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- Well since the subject is deleting the old 2.9 complaint, that it is not true *is* another reason to delete it. As for whatever your thinking was said in some other article, not recalled by me but not relevant to this article anyway. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 11:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- I don't know what that even means, but I do know you have previously made a point that Obama's GDP never hit 3%, despite hitting 5.1% in one quarter, but now that Trump is president you point to one 3.1% quarter to assert that he actually has hit 3%. soibangla (talk) 23:06, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- In this case it means the sniping criticism from ~6 months ago is no longer true. Markbassett (talk) 20:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- It hit 5.1% and 4.9% in two consecutive quarters of 2014. Did Obama have 3% growth? Of course not. GDP bounces around, one quarter means nothing. Here's the real data. soibangla (talk) 00:27, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- Except that it did hit 3.1% this year, so yes the promised number was exceeded microscopically. But really, comparing back to a speech seems just a long stretch for some way to complain about good news -- whereas a proponent would point to an increasing trend during his term. I'd rather just state the fact of what it is and leave out the contortions and spincraft, thanks. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:49, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
although rates of job creation and weekly earnings
it's important to say the average growth rates, or else readers may (correctly) think you're inappropriately comparing two Trump years to the four years preceding him. "Rates" can (correctly) be interpreted as an invalid comparison, while "average growth rates" makes it clear it's a valid comparison. This, and the fact that it's inflation-adjusted earnings, needs to be made explicitly clear to avoid ambiguity.
- That's not the normal way the stats are given -- the unemployment is given in %, and the Jobs growth is given in thousands of jobs added (or lost). Some stories now cover that the unemployment is hitting record lows in some areas, but not seeing WEIGHT to a percentage of a percentage -- again, just state the number that is, not analysis numbers that are portraying it as a comparison or something. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:59, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- In fact, average growth rates are the way the reliable source presents the data. soibangla (talk) 00:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- WEIGHT of presentation is for unemployment % and job creation number in thousands that month. That one can find a source using furlongs does not make it the morm. Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 11:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- In fact, average growth rates are the way the reliable source presents the data. soibangla (talk) 00:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- That's not the normal way the stats are given -- the unemployment is given in %, and the Jobs growth is given in thousands of jobs added (or lost). Some stories now cover that the unemployment is hitting record lows in some areas, but not seeing WEIGHT to a percentage of a percentage -- again, just state the number that is, not analysis numbers that are portraying it as a comparison or something. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:59, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
the Dow Jones Industrial Average increased 25.9% during Trump's first two years in office
Readers ask: "is that high or low? is it better or worse than during previous presidencies, or by some other benchmark?" They have no way to know.
- And still don't - because the Trump market rally began when he was elected in November 2016, which is why it is directly attributed to his being elected. There is some credit given to ones policies - but it takes the first year to get things in place and see some result, so that will be an after-presidency judgement. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:04, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- You previously proposed counting only his first year market performance, excluding his second year when the market declined. Cherrypick much? soibangla (talk) 00:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- Mmm. Actually the Trump stock market rally was circa 18 months starting in November 2016, so accuracy and coverage WEIGHT favors mention of that rather than yearmarks. One could state a year boundary, but then shouldn’t use event terminology like “rally”. A rally is an event however long it is, it doesn’t run on arbitrary January timetable. In any mention of yearmarks ... I’d say ‘first year’ has some lasting perspective, but that two-year was a transitory point now gone as we come up on third year. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 12:08, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- There is no "Trump stock market". Onetwothreeip (talk) 12:19, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- Onetwothreeip That was "Trump stock market rally". The Trump + "stock market" would be a more mentioned and wider area of discussion than the Trump "stock market rally" event or the generic "Trump bump" for multiple momentary areas. An NY Times example was "'Trump Bump' Lifts Stocks, Giving President a Win for His First 100 Days". There are more recent expressions of “Trump Slowdown” (expect “Trump Slump”). It’s just the labeling in media. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:21, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- There is no "Trump stock market". Onetwothreeip (talk) 12:19, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- Mmm. Actually the Trump stock market rally was circa 18 months starting in November 2016, so accuracy and coverage WEIGHT favors mention of that rather than yearmarks. One could state a year boundary, but then shouldn’t use event terminology like “rally”. A rally is an event however long it is, it doesn’t run on arbitrary January timetable. In any mention of yearmarks ... I’d say ‘first year’ has some lasting perspective, but that two-year was a transitory point now gone as we come up on third year. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 12:08, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- You previously proposed counting only his first year market performance, excluding his second year when the market declined. Cherrypick much? soibangla (talk) 00:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- And still don't - because the Trump market rally began when he was elected in November 2016, which is why it is directly attributed to his being elected. There is some credit given to ones policies - but it takes the first year to get things in place and see some result, so that will be an after-presidency judgement. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:04, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
I could go on, but I won't. You have said my edit is very poor in explaining economics
and contains factual errors which misrepresent economics
, when in reality your proposed alternative is demonstrably inferior, which I repeatedly demonstrated in the previous thread on this topic, but which you repeatedly pivoted from and changed the subject and did what you wanted anyway. Finally, what you and others have falsely characterized as editorializing/opinion is actually context, which is very commonly disliked and hence goes unmentioned by partisans when it doesn't make "their guy" look good. Alas, I see the usual suspects have now arrived to obfuscate the reality that there is not, in fact, any economic boom as Trump repeatedly asserts, and so I will not prevail in this discussion, so this is all I will have to say on this topic at this time. PS: I studied economics at the #1 econ program on Earth and I have decades of professional experience in this sort of analysis. And you? soibangla (talk) 21:45, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Readers ask: "is that number better or worse than he said it would be, due to his policies?" But the edit provides no guidance.
That is only what you believe readers to be asking. We are not here to provide guidance on whether 2.9% is good or bad.it's important to say the average growth rates, or else readers may (correctly) think you're inappropriately comparing two Trump years to the four years preceding him.
Unnecessary, as rates are already averages. I only kept the "four years" to maintain as much original meaning from your proposal as I could, so I would certainly be fine with removing that number.Readers ask: "is that high or low? is it better or worse than during previous presidencies, or by some other benchmark?" They have no way to know.
This is not something that should be compared between presidencies at all, and shouldn't be directly attributed to any president either. Again you're pretending that readers are asking what you happen to want the article to say.- Some readers may very well want an editorial that compares Trump and Obama, or Trump as president and Trump as a candidate, but that's not the place for the highest level summary on economic policy. This is the first paragraph of the section and is only meant to introduce the topic. There is still plenty of criticism about him in the rest of the section. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:23, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Unnecessary, as rates are already averages
Not necessarily, and especially not for readers who are not economically literate. Be explicit. soibangla (talk) 00:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)- Throwing out a number without some benchmark for comparison is nearly worthless. That's the only reason I compared him to previous presidents. Got a better way? Then use it. soibangla (talk) 00:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- You are effectively presenting a data table in prose. If you want to add a data table, you can do that. But we have an encyclopedic responsibility to provide readers with context and meaning of the data, not just a recital of noncontextual data points. soibangla (talk) 00:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Extended back-and-forth between two users — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awilley (talk • contribs) 18:12, 16 July 2019 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- Here is the actual edit by Onetwothreeip. One of problems: this is not replacement as stated in the beginning of the thread. For example, Onetwothreeip removes phrase starting from "Through his first 28 months in office...". I do not see any reason why it should be removed. My very best wishes (talk) 13:49, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- We don't have to replace that phrase with this. I think that was added sometime between my original proposal and when I most recently replaced the paragraph. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:31, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- I just would like to re-confirm: there is no consensus for these changes. Where? Please start an RfC if you wish. My very best wishes (talk) 11:12, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- I can confirm there is indeed consensus here. The only editor who disagrees is Soibangla. You had reverted the replacement since I inadvertently removed another sentence that was since added to the original paragraph. To carry this out, the replacing will simply allow that sentence to remain as it is irrelevant to the discussion here. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:19, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- Your "consensus" comes exclusively from two editors who are not exactly well-known for their neutrality on Trump matters, whereas your edit has been reverted by three editors whose neutrality has not been questioned. soibangla (talk) 22:59, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- At least four editors actually and reverted by two, and we don't cast aspersions on other editors. Otherwise your neutrality or anybody who may agree with you could just as well be questioned. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:11, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- I disagree. Additionally, the admin from whom you sought support to restore your version expressed substantial skepticism, and two editors, including one from your "consensus," have suggested you open an RfC. soibangla (talk) 23:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- It's a matter of record that four editors have supported the proposed paragraph, not an opinion. There is nothing wrong with scepticism of any proposal, and I welcome constructive dialogue and suggestions to further improve the paragraph. In no way do I intend my proposal to be the final version. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:43, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- I disagree. Additionally, the admin from whom you sought support to restore your version expressed substantial skepticism, and two editors, including one from your "consensus," have suggested you open an RfC. soibangla (talk) 23:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- At least four editors actually and reverted by two, and we don't cast aspersions on other editors. Otherwise your neutrality or anybody who may agree with you could just as well be questioned. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:11, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- Your "consensus" comes exclusively from two editors who are not exactly well-known for their neutrality on Trump matters, whereas your edit has been reverted by three editors whose neutrality has not been questioned. soibangla (talk) 22:59, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- I can confirm there is indeed consensus here. The only editor who disagrees is Soibangla. You had reverted the replacement since I inadvertently removed another sentence that was since added to the original paragraph. To carry this out, the replacing will simply allow that sentence to remain as it is irrelevant to the discussion here. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:19, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- I just would like to re-confirm: there is no consensus for these changes. Where? Please start an RfC if you wish. My very best wishes (talk) 11:12, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- We don't have to replace that phrase with this. I think that was added sometime between my original proposal and when I most recently replaced the paragraph. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:31, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- re:
Economists were nevertheless impressed
If we can't achieve consensus to pick one of the paragraphs, can we at least get rid of this weasle-y, uncited opinion? Galestar (talk) 23:30, 23 July 2019 (UTC)- That's a bad phrase for more than one reason and should certainly be removed. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:43, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- I am against this edit because it tells "his economic policies have largely centred around tax cuts...which he has credited for economic growth". That's misleading. "Trump had asserted that..." (old version) is more accurate. That was just his assertion, nothing more. My very best wishes (talk) 04:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- "Trump has asserted his economic policies have centered around tax cuts and deregulation..." would be a good alteration. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:17, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
RfC: Should the section Donald Trump#Health and lifestyle include a paragraph about his mental health?
Back in 2017 a consensus developed on the article talk page that even though there was a great deal being said about his mental health in sources, we should not say anything on the subject in the article. In 2018 an article Health of Donald Trump was written which was primarily about his mental health. In June 2019 that article was AfD’ed, with the result to merge it to the Donald Trump article. Since the article being merged was primarily about mental health, a paragraph on the subject was developed at the Trump talk page and added to the article; it is now the final paragraph in the “Health and lifestyle” section. Some people have deleted it or objected to it, so we are seeking a definitive answer to the question: should we have a paragraph about his mental health? The question here is whether we should have something or nothing. Exact wording can be debated later, if the conclusion here is that, yes, we should say something on the subject. In the meantime the paragraph at issue should remain in the article.-- MelanieN (talk) 01:05, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Background
- Since 2017 the Donald Trump article has had a talk-page consensus to “Omit any opinions about Trump's psychology held by mental health academics or professionals who have not examined him.” Previous discussions: link 1, July 2017; link 2, July-August 2017
- In July 2018 an article Health of Donald Trump was created. Originally it was entirely about his mental health. [7] Later some material about his physical health was added, primarily copied from the Donald Trump article, but the bulk of the article was still about mental health.[8] On June 6, 2019 the article was nominated for deletion. On June 13 the AfD was closed as “merge to Donald Trump;” the closure included a detailed analysis of the discussion and options, and a later addendum caveat that “the editors who carry out the merger should probably consider a very selective merge that only includes the good material supported by top-notch sources.”
- June 13 - 24: Upon the close of the AfD there was a discussion here at Talk:Donald Trump] [9] about how to do the merge, resulting in the final paragraph currently in the “Health and lifestyle” section.
- June 28 - July 14, a discussion [10] about whether and how to reword the earlier consensus, which had been not to say anything about mental health; result was to replace it with “Include one paragraph merged from Health of Donald Trump describing views about Trump's psychology expressed by public figures, media sources, and mental health professionals who have not examined him.”
- July 10 - 11, another discussion [11] because some people were deleting the mental health paragraph from the article. Since none of the previous discussions had been formal RfCs it was suggested that we should have one. This is it. MelanieN (talk) 00:52, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Pings
Participants in the “link 1” discussion, July 2017: User:Carbon Caryatid, User:SPECIFICO, User:Objective3000, User:Mandruss, User:Markbassett, User:Power~enwiki, User:Snow_Rise, User:JFG -- MelanieN (talk) 01:05, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Additional participants in the “link 2” discussion, July-August 2017: User:BullRangifer, User:Hidden_Tempo, User:PackMecEng, User:Zbrnajsem, User:MelanieN, User:Tataral, User:The_Wordsmith -- MelanieN (talk) 01:05, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Participants in the June 2019 discussions: @BD2412, BobRoberts14, Atsme, Onetwothreeip, TParis, Jo-Jo Eumerus, Tataral, MrX, Scjessey, Markbassett, JFG, MONGO, Starship.paint, Mandruss, GreenMeansGo, and Ahrtoodeetoo: -- MelanieN (talk) 01:05, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Participants in the July 2019 discussion: same as above plus User:The Four Deuces, User:Cosmic Sans, User:Emir of Wikipedia, User:Amakuru -- MelanieN (talk) 01:05, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Support including something on the subject of mental health
- Support because of the decision to merge the other article into this one. Also because there are much more solid sources now than there were in 2017. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:00, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support. Trump himself has addressed his mental health, publicly describing himself as a "stable genius" on multiple occasions. That did not occur in a vacuum. Wikipedia is not the APA's enforcer, so it is not our job to bar sources reporting on evaluations of the subject by third-party observers. Of course, it is very common to include such evaluations of important figures, with our own articles containing evaluations of the mental health of Abraham Lincoln and of Adolf Hitler, and we even have an article on the mental health of Jesus. All of these are sourced to people who had not made first-hand examinations of the patient. bd2412 T 01:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
|
- Highly conditional support. Now, clearly anything added to the article which touches upon this subject needs to be scrupulously vetted for appropriate WP:WEIGHT and needs to fully attributed. Indeed, I would even go as far as to say that the burden for inclusion for statements along these lines should be a particularly high standard of consensus--if for no other reason than the stability of any such content. All of that said, this is clearly the only one of the two options that is policy consistent. We do not omit major topics concerning an article subject which are discussed in huge numbers of sources on the matter simply because the topic is politically or socially charged. Rather, we instead provide the span of perspectives on the topic, in proportion to their weight in WP:RS.
- Likewise, anyone asserting we cannot mention any expert observation because of the Goldwater Rule has wandered into one hell of a non-sequitor argument: Wikipedia is not bound in any shape, manner or form by the APA's policies and professional guidelines. We have our own policies to determine whether content is included and those are the ones representing this the broader consensus of this community by which we must abide. The fact of the matter is, many experts have provided perspectives on the topic of Trump's mental health, and these have frequently come in the form of reliable sources. What that means for their professional standing and ethics is an issue for them to resolve among themselves, the bodies that license them and the professional associations to which they belong. And FYI, as someone who is familiar with APA standards and how they play out with regard to published statements, I think it needs to be said that the Goldwater Rule is not as inviolable as some here seem to think it is: it does happen more than occasionally that a mental health expert violates it, and there has long been debate as to whether it is an appropriate. Furthermore, not all psychological nor mental health experts are members of the APA to begin with. Some here seem to think that it is the licensing authority for psychiatrists in the U.S., but that is not the case: the state in which they practice licenses psychiatrists. The APA merely advances the interests of the profession as a whole, but there is absolutely no professional obligation to belong to the APA, and even if a scholar or practitioner who belonged to the APA was to choose to leave the organization because of a disagreement over Goldwater Rule or any other difference of opinion over ethics, they would remain a completely licensed and credible expert in their field. Being a member of the APA is more about professional networking and advocacy, but not every board certified practitioner or researcher chooses to join and we can safely presume that some of those who have commented on Trump's mental state are in fact not members. The same is true of the AMA (the other professional association to embrace the Goldwater Rule): only 25% of American doctors are currently a member of the AMA.
- None of the last paragraph should even matter to our analysis here, of course--this should all be decided by WP:WEIGHT and not some idiosyncratic reading of the APA's stance on appropriate diagnosis. And this would be true even if the APA was a licensing authority. But I've seen so many comments here that clearly evidence deep confusion over what the APA is and what its relationship is to experts in the psychological and psychiatric sciences, so clearly all of this needs to be pointed out. Also, not every person who has commented about Trump's mental health is a psychiatrists, and among those who are, not all of them are Americans, so, really, let's please jettison this whole WP:Original research line of reasoning that Goldwater Rule prevents us from discussing topics of WP:DUE importance. It really, really has no substantive relation to how our policies require us to evaluate this issue.
- That lengthy caveat and clarification done, I want to end by returning to my original point, which bears reiterating: while there is no policy reason prohibiting discussion of Trumps mental health and plenty of WP:WEIGHT argument for doing so under our policies, this should all still be approached slowly and cautiously with regard to what is added. This is largely the standard on this article already, I believe, but I believe all content as to this subject should be vetted here before being added, and subject to an !vote that should have a substantial majority for anything added. Where available, counter-arguments to those who have sought to judge Trump's mental state from a afar should be given, and the critical mpressions themselves need to be scrupulously attributed, with lots of detail as to the degree of direct contact, or absence thereof, of any expert opining on the subject to the man's psychiatric health and psychological (and particularly biopsychological) qualities. Snow let's rap 05:08, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support. It's WP:DUE with significant coverage in reliable sources, and because of WP:PUBLICFIGURE, deserves mention even if it is negative. starship.paint (talk) 10:07, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support. Just too much serious coverage to completely ignore, and the two step process provides the ability to carefully word an addition without the distraction of keeping no addition as an option. And as stated, this sets no precedent as different articles are different articles and no article is carved in stone. O3000 (talk) 12:30, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support - It seems weird to me that one of the most discussed aspects of the Trump presidency isn't mentioned on Wikipedia. I understand that some people are squeamish about this, because many anti-Trump sources have taken the topic and blown it out of proportions, but I'm sure a consensus can be reached on a paragraph that describes the media allegations, the medical testing Trump has undertaken and the rebuttal of the claims. As long as WP:NPOV is maintained, reliable sources are used, and the added text has the appropriate length and position in the article (not a whole section, not in the lead etc) this should be fine. PraiseVivec (talk) 12:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support. Not only that was widely discussed in sources/media, but this is the most important question about the "Leader of the Free World". My very best wishes (talk) 15:23, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- Strong Support his mental health has been questioned...he is president and has his finger on the button.2600:1702:2340:9470:D495:B1E0:9991:40F0 (talk) 15:38, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- Reluctantly support - As long as it's well-sourced to reliable, neutral outlets and the section doesn't get conspiratorial, then I'll support it. If we start talking about fringe ideas like Trump having dementia, then I oppose. Jdcomix (talk) 16:09, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support as long as it remains appropriately weighted and NPOV. I don't want to see another coatrack.--v/r - TP 23:01, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- Strong Support based on the clear weakness of the arguments presented against it and the overwhelming, clear-cut coverage requiring inclusion. Coverage is extensive and enduring, and that's all that matters. Concerns below about the Goldwater Rule are silly - we're not a newspaper ourselves. We can and should report about that rule, but extensive long-term coverage about someone's mental health in high-quality mainstream reliable sources obviously belongs in their article. We have to be careful to use the sources appropriately and reflect what they actually say, but that's always the case. The attempts to argue that the mere discussion of this is WP:FRINGE likewise seem bizarre - the sources covering it from a credible perspective are extensive and well within the mainstream; there's no reasonable way to characterize the mere discussion of Trump's mental health as WP:FRINGE. EDIT: Support upgraded to strong based on the sheer, flat weakness of the arguments being presented against this. EDIT: Note the reply to this, which unambiguously asks for this material to be omitted for non-policy-based reasons. --Aquillion (talk) 23:16, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Extended discussion PackMecEng (talk) 02:50, 20 July 2019 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- Support - Any argument for inclusion rests on WP:WEIGHT, and significant media coverage settles that argument conclusively. What form that inclusion takes is going to be a much harder discussion, although I could've sworn we'd already had it! -- Scjessey (talk) 12:31, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support - All things considered, I've long thought inclusion of mental health issues are important in Trump's bio and none of the comments that suggest otherwise have changed my mind. Gandydancer (talk) 13:54, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support - This RfC is set up as either nothing or something more than nothing. As such, obviously support. There are piles of reliable sources for this. If Wikipedia were itself a member of the APA, then there would be a point to discussing the Goldwater Rule. However, we aren't governed by the policies of a particular association, we're governed by Wikipedia policies like WP:NPOV/WP:RS. And by those, there's clearly sufficient coverage to justify something. That doesn't mean anything (let's not get conspiratorial or start making big claims in Wikipedia's voice, certainly), but this RfC isn't a choice between nothing and going nuts (so to speak); it's about nothing vs. !nothing. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:05, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support. First sentence of the nutshell at WP:NPOV: "Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias." Opposing !votes effectively say this article should not do that. Second sentence in the nutshell at WP:NPOV: "This applies to both what you say and how you say it." That will be the subject of follow-on discussion if this RfC passes. That discussion will be more complex and nuanced, but this one is an easy call. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:57, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support - This must be properly sourced and be given due weight.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:50, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support. This was already discussed following extensive discussion just weeks ago, and a text has been agreed upon. I frankly don't see the need for a rehash of the debate now. None of the supposed "arguments" against the inclusion of this material are based on, or have anything to do with, Wikipedia policy. (Personally I would prefer not to frame it as a discussion of his "mental health", but rather of his "personality" which is a broader topic than any mental illnesses, and which doesn't even have to mean that he has any mental illness.) --Tataral (talk) 09:46, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support, per MelanieN, Aquillion, Tataral and others. Maybe move "Mental health" to "Public profile" for now? We’re not proposing to make "armchair" medical and/or psychiatric diagnoses, we’re stating what RS are reporting. Trump is a public figure, so—in Wikipedia’s words—
BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.
, i.e., it’s also WP:DUE. RS are not bound by the APA’s opinion thatphysician members of the APA [should] refrain from publicly issuing professional medical opinions about individuals that they have not personally evaluated in a professional setting or context
, and neither are we. When someone is an entertainer or a random person yelling at a street sign, who cares how mentally unhinged he talks or sounds; when someone in a powerful position does it and it is widely reported on RS, it’s noteworthy and WP:DUE.
Like, totally, for sure. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:47, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
|
---|
Starts at 6:24 A man I know who I don’t like, a businessman, very, very successful business, one of the most successful men, I don’t like him, never liked him, he never liked me either by the way, in fact I would go a step further, he can, he cannot stand me, and I saw him about two months ago, and he came up to me, I said how you doing, very warm, whatever, you know, hey, how you doing, ugh let’s get out of here, and he said, I’m doing good, you’re doing good, I said, yeah, I said, you know you don’t like me and I don’t like you, I never have liked you and you never have liked me, but you’re gonna support me because you’re a rich guy and if you don’t support me you’re gonna be so goddamn poor you’re not gonna believe it. (Crowd cheers) (Finally being able to put the 10-finger touch typing to good use) |
- Must be 5 o’clock somewhere, so it’s not too early for me to look at the Jim Beam. It’s American, and the word is "confused". (Jack Upland, wanna change your vote?) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:47, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Strong Support This issue is relevant and needs to be in the article. 2600:1702:2340:9470:ECEE:136B:4E62:62DB (talk) 18:34, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose including anything on the subject of mental health
- Split to Lifestyle of Donald Trump, along with other sections. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:10, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- I would agree with a split, but health issues are not really "lifestyle" matters; I would prefer Personal life of Donald Trump. bd2412 T 01:32, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- I don't see how health can't be considered a matter of lifestyle, but I'm not particularly concerned about the name of the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:44, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- The problem with that is WP:WEIGHT; if we do decide to include this or that detail about the subject of Trump's mental health, then the issues is surely most relevant to articles focused on his public duties rather than his personal life, the former being the context which in which virtual all sources discuss the man's mental well being. If we decide to discuss this topic at all, it will most certainly me at its maximum level of germane in the articles concerned with his life as a public figure and head of state, not the impacts that it has on his private life, a subject upon which sources addressing the topic are much more quiet. Snow let's rap 00:36, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose As these are armchair opinions rendered from afar which is widely disapproved of by the APA. I can elaborate in discussion below later.--MONGO (talk) 01:14, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose - Adding the following underlined comment 15:18, 20 July 2019 (UTC) BLPN discussion determined the armchair diagnoses to be Coatrack. If this RfC favors support, we should limit inclusion to a summary of only those doctors who actually examined him, and avoid policy noncompliance per WP:EXCEPTIONAL I'm of the mind that we should be consistent regarding armchair diagnoses - see Hillary Clinton - despite what some in MSM were publishing (speculating), it was not included, and should not be. The same applies here. If we do include it here, that leaves other BLPs open to inclusion of similar speculation; i.e., sets a precedent. Atsme Talk 📧 01:21, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- I have never seen anything remotely like this in RS related to Hillary Clinton. In any case, this is WP:OTHERCONTENT O3000 (talk) 01:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- Adding AfD amendment and prior consensus:
Amendment to close: A small amendment per a request on my talk page: Given that many of the concerns here are about the reliability of medical information and whether "armchair diagnoses" by people who have not personally examined Trump are actually reliable, as well as more general gossip/unencyclopedicity concerns, the editors who carry out the merger should probably consider a very selective merge that only includes the good material supported by top-notch sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 3:35 am, 14 June 2019 (UTC−5) (reply)
- Policy based reason to exclude armchair diagnoses added Atsme Talk 📧 20:45, 20 July 2019 (UTC) WP:EXCEPTIONAL - claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living people. This is especially true when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them. The prevailing view within the relevant community involves the doctor(s) who actually examined Trump, and the WH doctor said Trump “has absolutely no cognitive or mental issues”. The doctors who provided armchair diagnoses violated their own doctors' code of ethics. Footnote 9: "A conflict of interest involves the abuse – actual, apparent, or potential – of the trust that people have in professionals. The simplest working definition states: A conflict of interest is a situation in which financial or other personal considerations have the potential to compromise or bias professional judgment and objectivity. An apparent conflict of interest is one in which a reasonable person would think that the professional's judgment is likely to be compromised. A potential conflict of interest involves a situation that may develop into an actual conflict of interest. It is important to note that a conflict of interest exists whether or not decisions are affected by a personal interest; a conflict of interest implies only the potential for bias, not a likelihood.
- Oppose as unspecific This is asking for carte blanche 'a paragraph' without any specific on content or guidance to retrain things and that's just not a CONSENSUS on anything. We already have four other new paras from an AfD which largely happened because the page was viewed by as POV verging on ATTACK so caution is warranted -- and the AfD arbiter specifically cautioned about 'armchair diagnosis'. This just is not the WP:MAINSTREAM positions, it is a number of individual items that got some press time. So while it might be possible to mention events it would need to be handled as not authoritative and avoid doing OR SYNTH to portray it as an overall picture. In particular it should not state things as 'medical professionals', as it is false to portray a fringe group doing something typically regarded as unethical as the only such as if they were the WP:MEDRS community authority. So Consensus #21 should be in place as a control should a para be included. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:24, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
|
- Oppose The Goldwater rule prevents mental health professionals commenting on potential diagnoses of politicians and other people whom they have not personally examined, specifically the American Psychiatric Association, in the DSM V, describes such behaviour as unethical. So this clearly places this article into territory that quite substantially violates WP:LIBEL, WP:BLP, WP:NOTSPECULATION and WP:UNDUEWEIGHT.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 02:39, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- There is no evidence base for armchair psychiatry, it is WP:FRINGE pseudoscience and obvious quackery and deserves no weight whatsoever per WP:NPOV, specifically per WP:PSCI, especially in a WP:BLP. In fact, ‘armchair psychiatry’ is considered to be professional malpractice. Armchair psychiatry advocacy is very similar to advocacy arguments in favour of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth who similarly did not examine the raw evidence in person. Without a psychiatrist interviewing D. Trump himself, and perhaps also family members and friends of his, it is not possible to determine whether Trump’s behaviour (always being very positive and upbeat about himself and his allies and the very opposite with his critics) is calculated and learnt through his success in the business, legal and now political world or whether it is a personality trait or disorder. Ben Carson has said that D. Trump is a completely different person in private than he is in public.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:29, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
considered to be professional malpractice
-> obviously, this isn't a universal consideration, surely everyone who spoke out against Trump didn't think it was. Also, if you're bringing in Ben Carson, let's see what others say. Trump biographer, Michael D'Antonio, at the start of the presidency.I've always seen him as a man who defines himself by the number of norms he can violate ... he uses gamesmanship instead of performance to reach his goal
Look at how that turned out. If you think Trump is some kind of stable genius in private, read Mueller Report#President's efforts to curtail the Special Counsel investigation, look at what Lewandowski transcribed. Publicly attacking the investigation, privately attacking the investigation, in quite a silly manner. starship.paint (talk) 13:44, 25 July 2019 (UTC)- He is an obnoxious alpha male for sure in his approach to achieving his goals, but he is a living person and per BLP we cannot have armchair pseudo-diagnoses given to him. Maybe when he is deceased and BLP no longer applies we could relax sourcing standards to comment. There is also the risk these armchair psychiatrists are abusing their credentials because they oppose D. Trump politically, after all most of them signed a statement that they think he should be removed from office, which further weakens their position and sources.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:54, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
|
- Oppose: A psychiatrist's diagnosis of an individual they've never personally examined is sometimes colloquially called an "armchair diagnosis." The APA, which is the largest and most authoritative group of psychiatrists in the world, considers such diagnoses to be unethical and unreliable. [[15]]. While it true that not all psychiatrists are members of the APA, it is nevertheless the preeminent organization for psychiatrists -- and, perhaps most importantly, there is NO association of psychologists or psychiatrists that have put their stamp of approval on armchair diagnoses. Therefore, idea that such diagnoses are valid constitutes a fringe theory that has no place in Wikipedia as per WP:DUE. It does not matter if Trump "opened the door", so to speak, by calling himself a "stable genius." (If a Wikipedia article says that the world is round, does that "open the door" to a thorough discussion of Flat Earth theory? Absolutely not.) On top of that, there are serious BLP concerns associated with using such a pseudoscience in an article about a living person. There's really no reason why this should be included at all. Even if you could muster some RS reporting on it, and even if there are a group of individuals who claim it, the policies WP:DUE and WP:BLP are not overriden. Cosmic Sans (talk) 13:39, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
|
- Oppose - For a veriety of reasons mentioned above. WP:BLP being the core but in that umbrella WP:BLPGOSSIP particularly. In a lot of these cases it is largely being presented as true even though it is impossible for them to say for sure that it is. That is because NONE of the people opining about his mental health have actually examined him. This goes back to the goldwater rule. I note above people are trying to refute that it applies here. That is technically true, but in practice horribly horribly wrong. The core of the argument of the goldwater rule is that it is unethical to diagnose someone without examining them. Why would we rely on the opinion of people not acting ethically? PackMecEng (talk) 14:57, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Extended discussion about the Goldwatter Rule, the Mental health of Jesus, and ethics ~Awilley (talk) 00:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
|
---|
|
- Oppose per User:Cosmic SansAdoring nanny (talk) 12:21, 19 July 2019 (UTC).
- Oppose. I'm against including such a paragraph. I just think it's unworthy and unencyclopedic. That said, I hesitated to post here, in the same section as Markbassett's IMO quite unreasonable argument that "This is asking for carte blanche" to write just anything about Trump's mental health. No, it clearly is not, but I'm still against it. Bishonen | talk 17:29, 19 July 2019 (UTC).
- Ugh. Yay, let's have more Trump. If our article states he claims of himself he's a "stable genius", I think that's all we need to say. Drmies (talk) 23:17, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't think anything concerning his "mental health" should be included in the article. The "professional opinions" are just his political opponents speculating about a patient they have never spoken to. That is not a real psychological evaluation at all. I was a clinical psychiatrist for years before retiring, and although I oppose Donald Trump, it is completely irrational to "evaluate" someone without examining them in person. Unless there are sources based on psychologists who interviewed him, nothing should be put in the article. 98.164.149.85 (talk) 20:23, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose — any opinions will just be speculation. Given the often expressed concern about article length, it's clear that this shouldn't be in the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:18, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose: Per User:Cosmic Sans -- since armchair psychiatry is pseudoscience, adding any instances of such would violate WP:PSCI. If Trump's doctor diagnoses him with a mental health disorder, that would be acceptable, but an analysis by someone who has never personally met or examined Trump is not. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:59, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose – I have been sitting on the fence for a long time on this question. Certainly the subject matter of Trump's mental health has been abundantly covered by RS, but on the other hand it's hard to de-associate such coverage from partisan politics of one side or the other. Let's face it: both claims of Trump being a "raving lunatic" or a "very stable genius" are ridiculous hyperbole, and Wikipedia is not a tabloid. Hence my opposition on BLP, NPOV and DUE WEIGHT concerns. The pseudoscience argument by 1990'sguy is also convincing. — JFG talk 12:05, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose – per comments from User:Markbassett, User:Cosmic Sans, User:1990'sguy and User:JFG. Mental health -and health diagnoses in general- might merit inclusion only when properly diagnosed by qualified experts, following proper examination, consultations and medical investigations. Armchair opinions, speculations or self-serving boasting (ie: "stable genius") do not qualify as diagnosis. --ColumbiaXY (talk) 05:43, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. A person's mental state can be devilishly difficult to define and reliable sources are unlikely to have anything unbiased to say on this subject. Bus stop (talk) 14:43, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
RfC Discussion
- I’ve always argued against this. But, how long can you ignore an elephant when there exist so many specialists in large, herbivorous mammals raising their hands? I’ve switched to leaning toward inclusion for now and await arguments. O3000 (talk) 01:10, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- @MelanieN: I don't think this was intentional but obviously the formulation of the RfC is misleading. The issue is not simply whether there should be any mention of his mental health, but the extent to which it is discussed. The concern is with the particular paragraph that is currently there. It would be quite awful if we resolved that mental health should be mentioned, and that result was used to justify opposing any significant change. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:19, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- 123, I purposely made this RfC be just about whether to say anything on the subject, not about the wording- with the understanding that actual text should and will be discussed only if the decision is to include anything at all on the subject. There appears to be significant disagreement about that, and there's no point in arguing about content if there isn't going to be any content. IMO if this RfC was about not just whether to say something, but also what to say, it would go in six or seven different directions and be impossible to come to any conclusion. In this format, someone can say "I support including something, but not the paragraph which is currently there" or "I support this only if it says such-and-such and doesn't say so-and-so." If it turns out that consensus is not to include anything at all, we will have saved ourselves a lot of arguing about the exact content - and if the result is to include, there can and should be discussion about the actual wording. Possibly even a second RfC about the wording, if we can't reach consensus on our own. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:44, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- User:MelanieN What *is* the subject already came up -- e.g. 'stupidity' is not mental health. If it's just a para about mental health then ... we can say he passed the cognition test, and mention the conflicting diagnosis offered in The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump, but other items are not included. Markbassett (talk) 03:02, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- 123, I purposely made this RfC be just about whether to say anything on the subject, not about the wording- with the understanding that actual text should and will be discussed only if the decision is to include anything at all on the subject. There appears to be significant disagreement about that, and there's no point in arguing about content if there isn't going to be any content. IMO if this RfC was about not just whether to say something, but also what to say, it would go in six or seven different directions and be impossible to come to any conclusion. In this format, someone can say "I support including something, but not the paragraph which is currently there" or "I support this only if it says such-and-such and doesn't say so-and-so." If it turns out that consensus is not to include anything at all, we will have saved ourselves a lot of arguing about the exact content - and if the result is to include, there can and should be discussion about the actual wording. Possibly even a second RfC about the wording, if we can't reach consensus on our own. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:44, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- My objection was the way the mental health claims were presented. Trump certainly has narcissistic tendencies but most experts would not support the claim that he has NPD. TFD (talk) 01:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- No? Check out the defining characteristics. Sound familiar? -- MelanieN (talk) 22:14, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- Now that was sure interesting. Thanks Mel. It's sorta creepy to see it all laid out like that... Gandydancer (talk) 16:31, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- I have read the criteria before and yes some of it sounds like Donald, but..... My problem is how does anyone distinguish between what is his core personality and what is strategic behaviour that he learnt in the business world, legal/litigation arena and now the political sphere — to always talk yourself and business proposals up, not admit to failure, whilst highlighting and belittling your opponents. I mean he did amazing as a business man and won the USA presidency so of course he is going to continue his winning behaviours of: alpha male, always be very positive about yourself and allies and very negative towards those that attack you. Ben Carson and others have stated Donald Trump is a very different person when you meet him in private and described a personality opposite to narcissism. And the point of this is why armchair diagnoses are a bad idea because a psychiatrist often needs to interview family members about how they behave in private. Armchair diagnoses of politicians are also especially bad as psychiatrists are prone to personal political bias as well.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:35, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
- Now that was sure interesting. Thanks Mel. It's sorta creepy to see it all laid out like that... Gandydancer (talk) 16:31, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- No? Check out the defining characteristics. Sound familiar? -- MelanieN (talk) 22:14, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- User:MelanieN I don't think an empty consensus really can help anything or even be much of a real consensus. It would have been better to do RFC with something about the nature of what the para is to be or some guiding limits -- some of the actual topics up in dispute before.
- Limit/Not limit it to generic summary of existence on such concerns being stated
- Include/exclude naming specific conditions and/or name the behaviour but do not make a diagnosis to specific mental disease
- Include/exclude opinions of mental health professionals who have not examined him, e.g. by name and/or quote
- Include/exclude opinions of non-medical individuals, e.g. prominent instances with name and/or quote
- Include/exclude specific mention of book(s) The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump and/or caveats the book states or opponents state
- Include/exclude specific mention of online petition(s), e.g. by source and/or quotes
- Include/exclude general responses by Trump, e.g. with/without quote
- Include/exclude any specific review/criticism of opinions by third parties
- Any other specific actions or guidance
- Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:30, 18 July 2019 (UTC)*
- There is nothing wrong with a simple include paragraph/omit paragraph !vote. If the result is omit paragraph we needn't discuss specifics, so doing so at this juncture might be said to put a cart before its horse. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- No, the unspecific nature is an issue. Without saying otherwise what 'mental health' is --- this consensus would then only refer to a paragraph of statements by medical professionals. Anything else - such as intelligence or memory -- have already been up as just not 'mental health'. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:55, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- You are completely misreading and misrepresenting the situation of this RfC. See my reply in the preceding section. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:18, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Mandruss: Markbassett has done that here and here. It's getting disruptive. They are insisting that anything that doesn't consider each of the above points isn't valid consensus.--v/r - TP 01:22, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- User:Mandruss and User:TParis - Yes, my concern before was the unspecific carte Blanche of just ‘a paragraph’, and I started a thread looking for specifics. Now, upon request for comment of MelanieN I gave it, and to Mandruss asking I confirmed that I still have it as a strong concern. Now please AGF and accept that no wording or guidance content is a voiced concern. Settling any of the unresolved topics listed from prior debates would do, or something new that is specific. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:04, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
- Except you're still demonstrating "I didn't hear that" behavior. An exact paragraph was proposed and !voted on. We came to a consensus on its content. You could answer your questions above simply by reading the paragraph and noting which content was included and which wasn't. I believe the exact wording was proposed by MelanieN. You still harping on this issue, despite everyone else ignoring you or telling you to drop it, is disruptive. AGF isn't a shield that you can be disruptive and keep hiding behind.--v/r - TP 13:42, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
- User:Mandruss and User:TParis - Yes, my concern before was the unspecific carte Blanche of just ‘a paragraph’, and I started a thread looking for specifics. Now, upon request for comment of MelanieN I gave it, and to Mandruss asking I confirmed that I still have it as a strong concern. Now please AGF and accept that no wording or guidance content is a voiced concern. Settling any of the unresolved topics listed from prior debates would do, or something new that is specific. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:04, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Mandruss: Markbassett has done that here and here. It's getting disruptive. They are insisting that anything that doesn't consider each of the above points isn't valid consensus.--v/r - TP 01:22, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- You are completely misreading and misrepresenting the situation of this RfC. See my reply in the preceding section. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:18, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- No, the unspecific nature is an issue. Without saying otherwise what 'mental health' is --- this consensus would then only refer to a paragraph of statements by medical professionals. Anything else - such as intelligence or memory -- have already been up as just not 'mental health'. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:55, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- There is nothing wrong with a simple include paragraph/omit paragraph !vote. If the result is omit paragraph we needn't discuss specifics, so doing so at this juncture might be said to put a cart before its horse. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- My main objection, as stated in my vote, is that "armchair diagnoses" are generally agreed to be unethical and unreliable and are therefore a fringe theory that should be excluded as per WP:DUE. The BLP concerns only amplify those issues. Cosmic Sans (talk) 13:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- Trump is an onerous person, but it is inappropriate to turn speculations into statements regarding his mental health. On the other hand, it is an objective fact that Trump critics have frequently alleged mental health issues in highly circulated publications. (For example, since they don't have a staff psychiatrist who has treated Trump, the New York Times is not a reliable source on Trump's mental health but a high profile publication containing allegations.) So any paragraph (by which I mean no more than two sentences) regarding the mental health allegations surrounding Trump should be framed in the context of "critics of Trump have speculated about his having mental health issues" with a couple citations (not five to twenty).
- Regarding the existing paragraph, it should be dramatically pruned. Only the first and third sentences (regarding the petition) should be kept, but change the source of first sentence to include the other sources citing experts. All other sentences are loaded with UNDUE weight, including the Trump's claims about his own great mental health. Two sentences are more than enough to point out the questions raised and how they have influenced the political arena.--Saranoon (talk) 14:59, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- I live in a town where homeless people walk down the street talking to themselves..it doesn`t take a psychiatrist to know they are mentally ill..I understand that those who oppose inclusion are not going to let it in without citation..that doesn`t make it less relevant..needs to be researched expanded and included (talk) 15:56, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- I think the focus on the "Goldwater Rule" is missing the mark somewhat. The Goldwater Rule is a rule about publication. While it binds members of the APA, it does not bind Wikipedia. What does bind Wikipedia, though, is the fact that these armchair diagnoses are generally considered to be medically and scientifically unreliable. That is to say, the objection is not "the Goldwater Rule says you shouldn't do it" but rather that "it is not scientifically valid." The Goldwater Rule came about because these armchair diagnoses are scientifically questionable. It's not that they're scientifically questionable because the Goldwater Rule came about. It may seem like a minor distinction, but it's relevant to us because WP:DUE/WP:FRINGE instructs us not to allocate a significant deal of space to a fringe theory. Which is exactly what this is. The idea that an individual can be reliably diagnosed by someone who has never examined them is not a mainstream idea. There may be an internal debate within some organizations as to whether people should be allowed to express those opinions, but that's not the same debate as whether these opinions carry scientific validity to them. As of yet, nobody has produced a source claiming that these kind of diagnoses have scientific authority. Cosmic Sans (talk) 17:22, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Over 40,000 mental health professionals had, by April 2017, signed a petition stating that:
- "My professional judgement is that Donald Trump manifests a serious mental illness that renders him psychologically incapable of competently discharging the duties of President of the United States. And I respectfully request him be removed from office, according to article 3 of the 25th Amendment."
It would, therefore, be a disservice to history for an encyclopedia to entirely overlook the issue, though I believe, like all things WP, that such inclusion should be stated in a concise and strictly factual way, supporting a WP:NPOV, with good sources included. Psychology Today published a fairly balanced discussion on it in March (https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/5-types-people-who-can-ruin-your-life/201903/malignant-narcissism-does-the-president-really), and scores of scholarly books are published on the subject (as a simple Google search of "Trump + Narcissism + PhD", and other variations, easily reveals), including such as Rocket Man: Nuclear Madness and the Mind of Donald Trump (2018), by veteran Johns Hopkins University Medical School psychology professor John Gartner, author of the 2017 petition. I'd say that scientific authorities are speaking loud and clear on the topic. Lindenfall (talk) 19:30, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- The "40,000 signatures" were from an online petition. There appears to be no verification that any of the people who signed the petition are actually mental health professionals. Otherwise, a handful of sensationalist books is not enough to counteract the clear scientific consensus that armchair diagnoses are not accurate. Cosmic Sans (talk) 20:12, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- Cosmic Sans Firstly, the bottom line here has nothing to do with armchair diagnoses, which are inarguably unfit for WP, but addresses the fact of the U.S. president's apparant mental health being widely discussed and studied by professionals, based upon his actions and utterances — specific diagnosis is not the the true topic, and is not germane to the inclusion. Secondly, You are implying that Dr. Gartner, a widely respected psychotherapist and mental health authority, may have misled Chuck Schumer regarding the credentials of the petition's signees, who were each required to include their degree credentials upon signing, when he submitted it to the New York Senator, in 2017. (Psychology Today appears not to discount the petition's signees. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-time-cure/201702/the-elephant-in-the-room?page=2). Thirdly, you undermine your own position in referencing, not a mere "handful", but a small, yet potent, library of contemporary works by noted MD's and PhD's as "sensationalist"... whereas that is the scientific community weighing in. Obviously, a diagnosis of any kind cannot be asserted as fact. Equally obvious is that the issue is major and notable, and so should be referenced — no mention is a whitewash of history. The mere existence of a book such as The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 37 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President on the New York Times bestsellers list speaks volumes on the topic's notability. Lindenfall (talk) 20:59, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- Lindenfall(1) Well, it does though. If someone says that Trump has dementia, paranoia, etc that is a diagnosis. (2) I'm not implying anything about Dr. Gartner. I'm pointing out the very real fact that this online petition has no verification. Anyone could have signed it. (3) It is, nevertheless, a fringe opinion. I'm not saying that nobody could advocate for it. I'm saying that it is not a mainstream idea that anyone can be reliably diagnosed without meeting them. Cosmic Sans (talk) 10:16, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- User:Lindenfall There are professional organizations that would constitute the ‘scientific consensus’ here, and they’re not saying things like this, they’ve been inclined to Goldwater rule. The online petition was signed by over 70,000 eventually, with however much bots and trolls in the mix - but if it was anywhere near that many actual professionals, it would have been stated in the professional organization. And it wasn’t. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 12:01, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- Cosmic Sans (and Markbassett): (1) Actually, anyone can say anything, but a diagnosis is a clinical term and an opinion is not a diagnosis. (2) I had deliberately used the numbers on the petition from before Gartner sent it to Schumer (because, after that, who knows), and as supported by Psychology Today. (3) I was never advocating for the petition's inclusion, but was making a point, for the sake of the existing argument, a point akin to my follow-up statement ("The mere existence of a book such as The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 37 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President on the New York Times bestsellers list speaks volumes on the topic's notability", above). You respond as if I had suggested adding it to the page. overlooking the point of its existence, and its prestigious author. Above all, please read me precisely in stating that a diagnosis is a moot point and is not at all germane to whether the topic should be included. Lindenfall (talk) 19:45, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- Lindenfall, (1) your distinction between "diagnosis" and "opinion" seems artificial and is not found in reliable sources. The APA appears to make no such distinction. (2) An online petition that does not verify who signs it cannot be used as proof that consensus has been reached in the scientific community. (3) Okay, but nevertheless, no mainstream organization has endorsed this. I'm sure you can scrape up 37 flat earthers or anti-vaxxers if you tried. Cosmic Sans (talk) 21:42, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- Cosmic Sans (1) Incorrect, since we are discussing medical diagnosis "with the medical context being implicit", as it always is in medical matters. However, why, I don't know, because, again, a diagnosis is neither attained nor the issue: including reference to widespread controversy over the mental health of the president is. (2) You miss the point, again. No one is suggesting that the petition be on the page; it's existence, central statement and esteemed author are, nonetheless, notable. (3) Not okay are gratuitous comments made in bad faith. Argument for the sake of argument is not productive. This discussion thread merely mocks the process here, and is so pointless, I'm done with it.Lindenfall (talk) 21:41, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
- User:Lindenfall I was the one who edited in the 40,000 sent to Schumer, sorry if that inclusion is contrary to your preference but was just trying to fix what seemed a miscopy from Health of Donald Trump. We don’t need to resolve here if the book is contrary to medical consensus on ethical practices and thus a fringe item where WP:FRINGE would apply ... the RFC topic doesn’t actually have that explicitly, it seems wanting to hold off that discussion. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:32, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
- Markbassett I literally do not know what you are talking about here: "I was the one who edited in the 40,000 sent to Schumer, sorry if that inclusion is contrary to your preference..." Edited in where? And, no, we don't need to resolve anything about the book, as no one is requesting its inclusion. The point was as written, that the existence of it, like the petition, due to its subject and authorship (and their defiance of custom to produce it), is, in fact, remarkable. Lindenfall (talk) 21:41, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
- In summary, it seems broad response with a large lot of discussions here and below, and about evenly divided Support and Oppose. (Which is a big change from the overwhelming ‘no’ in prior RFCs here.) A bit over a quarter of the Support side are Support only if it’s tightly controlled or limited, and a lot of the Oppose seem tied to it being disreputable as expressed by the Goldwater rule. The concerns of most seem to me in those two broad areas. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:58, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Discussion about the Goldwater Rule and "armchair diagnosis"
- I see a lot of people arguing that "we can't use armchair diagnosis, only someone who has actually examined the patient". That is the Goldwater Rule. What that leaves out is that someone who HAS examined the person would not be able to say anything either, because of the HIPAA privacy rule. By this logic, you can't say anything if you haven't examined him, and you can't say anything if you HAVE examined him, and basically all professionals are banned from ever saying anything, no matter their expertise or the source of their information. That makes no sense. The truth is that multiple in-depth interviews with a person are no longer considered the only way to evaluate their mental health. Their behavior and what they say can and does reveal a great deal to a trained professional. As for the argument that "memory" doesn't count as mental health - of course it does. Memory, or memory loss, is a prime symptom of Alzheimer's or other dementia. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:46, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- Actually MelanieN, you just presented an excellent argument for why we should oppose inclusion. There is a reason for HIPAA and the Goldwater Rule, and we, as editors of an encyclopedia, should not be judging or offering our own diagnoses in support of unethical ones simply because we agree with them. We should be using editorial discretion with a measure of human decency. Atsme Talk 📧 00:02, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) That is kind of the thing. It was brought up above
I hope that you will be consistent and nominate articles like Mental health of Jesus for deletion, must have been very unethical of all these scholars to examine Jesus.
which is of course a silly argument. But that is a similar argument you are using. There is a difference if the subject is alive or not when making credible diagnoses and even then they are taken with a grain of salt since they are not reliable. You mentionbasically all professionals are banned from ever saying anything, no matter their expertise or the source of their information
an answer to that is "yeah so what?". Better care should be taken about BLPs in general and this is a prime example of why. PackMecEng (talk) 00:05, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) That is kind of the thing. It was brought up above
- Note that neither of the two arguments presented above have any grounding in policy whatsoever, and that both implicitly acknowledge that the sources otherwise support inclusion. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED, and attacking clearly-reliable sources as unethical or trying to tug the heartstrings with an argument that inclusion would be a dreadful crime against human decency is bafflingly silly. If you have serious policy-based arguments to make, make them; but don't waste our time with this frippery. Read the sources. Weigh the sources. Decide if they justify inclusion or not. That's all we have to do. Both of you know this; you're experienced editors, so this sudden dive into irrelevant and unconvincing emotional appeals for something that is ultimately extremely straightforward is silly. You are asking us to ignore WP:WEIGHT, WP:RS, and WP:DUE based on an APA guideline that doesn't even apply to all medical professionals, let alone to Wikipedia. That's not policy-based, so if you have a better argument than the absurd "the NYT isn't a WP:RS because they violated the Goldwater Rule!", you'll have to present it. (If you honestly think that that makes the NYT not a WP:RS, WP:RSN is thataway. But you're wasting your time and you know it.) --Aquillion (talk) 07:42, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- The arguments we presented are of course policy based and we have explained why they are. You know this so I do not know why you would make these statements. PackMecEng (talk) 15:07, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- This is getting into WP:IDHT territory. If you have a policy-based argument, cite the policy. "But the Goldwater Rule!" isn't policy. "editorial discretion with a measure of human decency" isn't policy (in fact, in this context it directly violates WP:NOTCENSORED, since you're specifically asking that we censor otherwise-WP:DUE material based on a "think of the children!" argument.) "If it violates the Goldwater Rule, it's not reliable!" isn't anywhere in WP:RS that I can see - you don't get to disqualify otherwise-reliable sources simply because you don't like their coverage. If you have an actual policy-based argument, lay it out in detail; but no matter how strongly you feel about the Goldwater Rule, it's not part of our policies. If you feel that strongly about it, write angry letters to the numerous eminently reliable, high-quality WP:RSes that have covered this topic asking them to issue retractions; but it's a weak argument here, since it has no grounding in policy, and therefore should and will be rightfully ignored by whoever closes this RFC. --Aquillion (talk) 19:34, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- The question regarding the Goldwater rule is not that it is policy, no one is claiming it is obviously. It comes down to, do fringe views have due weight to make these kind of claims. I call them fringe in this instance because without examination it is guessing which is not enough for medical diagnosis. Heck they would fail our own WP:MEDRS standards. The second part of that is their speculation is rather unethical. While noted below not everyone belongs to the AMA it is still the standard by and large for the industry. In the end we also do have editorial discretion on what we put into our articles. There is coverage of the topic but in the grand scheme of things it is not that much given how much other coverage this man has. I hope that clears up the arguments for you. PackMecEng (talk) 15:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- The Goldwater rule is completely irrelevant. We follow WP:RS and WP:NPOV. There are numerous cases when experts evaluated mental health of politicians and historical figures based on their words, behavior and facts. If that was reliably published in multiple RS and the person was significant, that belongs to encyclopedia. My very best wishes (talk) 00:17, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- (Further to MelanieN's last comment) One also can't call the president a racist, no matter his verbiage, in Congress; there's a rule against it, we all recently learned, along with Nancy Pelosi. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/07/17/nancy-pelosi-was-rebuked-calling-trumps-tweets-racist-she-can-thank-thomas-jefferson-brits/?utm_term=.e891b2c9c838) Nonetheless, any publication can report the full story of how that came to be, or how it came to be in the news of the day. It only stands to reason that Wikipedia can, and should, include any widespread controversy, including the one over his mental health, diagnoses notwithstanding.
Diagnoses is beside the point of inclusion. Despite not requiring a diagnosis to include the controversy, might I also draw attention to this List of mentally ill monarchs, which has garnered no opponents for its many armchair diagnoses? Perhaps because they (too), are based on the opinions of scholars regarding the history of each individual's words and deeds. Lindenfall (talk) 00:23, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- Whatever rules might exist in US Congress, they are irrelevant to our content policies, just as the Goldwater rule. We say what reliable sources say on the subject. Yes, if many scholars say something regarding an individual, we just say the same. This is reference work. My very best wishes (talk) 00:34, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- Still has bad implications allowing, what is at best educated guesses about a BLP. As you know BLP issues and NPOV is not just welp sources talk about it so it must go in. PackMecEng (talk) 01:11, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- I am just saying that something might be included about it, maybe to another page. There are sources [20],[21],[22],[23]. Unfortunately, this is very real possibility. My very best wishes (talk) 02:42, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- This might be off topic, but do you honestly believe he will end life on the planet as we know it? PackMecEng (talk) 15:09, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- Thinking as a researcher, yes, I am sure Doomsday Clock shows the time correctly, and there are no doubts USA will play a role. Does it mean "ending life on the planet as we know it"? Not necessarily. In particular, the effects of nuclear winter are overstated. Read Nuclear War Survival Skills and buy dosimeter. This is my advice. On the other hand, "ending life on the planet as we know it" is inevitable, even without the nuclear war. Thinking in terms of the higher power, I am sure the humanity will survive. My very best wishes (talk) 15:31, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- Belief is subjective..nobody is sure of anything..this is relevant..it should be in article 2600:1702:2340:9470:F8DE:D64D:3F1F:3537 (talk) 18:15, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- Thinking as a researcher, yes, I am sure Doomsday Clock shows the time correctly, and there are no doubts USA will play a role. Does it mean "ending life on the planet as we know it"? Not necessarily. In particular, the effects of nuclear winter are overstated. Read Nuclear War Survival Skills and buy dosimeter. This is my advice. On the other hand, "ending life on the planet as we know it" is inevitable, even without the nuclear war. Thinking in terms of the higher power, I am sure the humanity will survive. My very best wishes (talk) 15:31, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- This might be off topic, but do you honestly believe he will end life on the planet as we know it? PackMecEng (talk) 15:09, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- I am just saying that something might be included about it, maybe to another page. There are sources [20],[21],[22],[23]. Unfortunately, this is very real possibility. My very best wishes (talk) 02:42, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- The Goldwater Rule is unambiguously not a policy-based argument to exclude something, and I ask the closing admin to disregard any opinions in the RFC that rely on it exclusively. We base inclusion on WP:DUE weight among reliable sources; if they consider a topic to be relevant, then we do as well. Likewise, the argument of "if a professional is ignoring the Goldwater Rule, are they really a reliable source?" is similarly frivolous to the point of absurdity - first, the Goldwater Rule doesn't apply to all professionals (there are many from different countries, or different organizations, or who have expertise in other ways.) Second, we don't, for the most part, cite professionals directly, but the reliable sources that cover them. It is inappropriate and, again, not based in policy to second-guess those secondary sources by saying "well, should they have really covered it?" That's not our call to make, and arguments grounded in trying to second-guess the sources like that should likewise be disregarded as not grounded in policy. We reflect the sources, which have unambiguously covered this topic at length. I strongly urge anyone who has relied on it in their opinions above to reconsider; they weaken their own arguments by relying on criticizing the sources in this way. (Especially since an implicit part of shifting that argument is, inevitably, an acknowledgement that the sources do support inclusion unless some argument can be made to discredit them.) --Aquillion (talk) 07:32, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- The sources such as Bandy's Lee's book and related material have all the appearances of hyper-partisan hatchet pieces. Since such hyper-partisan opinions are unlikely to be presented by reputable neutral psychiatrists, those that would do such a thing are doing so only from an unscientific manner of diagnostic care, and they lack the thorough vetting and support of the primary accrediting entity of that profession. The fact that that entity says "we do not do this" is the exact reason Lee spends a fair amount of time in her opening dialogue of her book discrediting the very entity that sets Hippocratic standards for her profession, a standard she overtly abrogates to present a less than likely scenario that Trump is a "national emergency" a "threat to the United States and global security", etc. Such hyperbolic sensationalism is definitively fringe. The Foreward in Lee's book is written by Jeffrey Sachs, who opens with telling us Trump is dangerous (though he himself is NOT a psychiatrist, he's a Keynesian economist) and then he too says that the APA's guidelines on presenting armchair diagnostics should be ignored and also discredits this primary accrediting entity, as grounds and justification to ignore their credo cause, trump is "dangerous".--MONGO (talk) 14:45, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- The RFC probably should have included a list of sources at the top, because there are a lot of them and many of them are plainly not "partisan hatchet pieces." Just as an example, here's a few: NYT, Again, Vanity Fair, Again, Independent, WaPo, New Yorker, IBT, US News and World Report. These aren't sources that can reasonably be disregarded. Your objections to eg. Lee would make sense if we were relying on citing them directly, but once they're covered by secondary sources that decision is mostly out of our hands - second-guessing a source by saying "they shouldn't cover this" (or, worse, "covering this axiomatically makes this a partisan hit piece") is going outside of WP:RS. Worse, the latter argument basically says that the topic must be excluded, always and forever, no matter what the sources say, because you'll axiomatically categorize any source covering it as a partisan hit piece; the argument amounts to saying "I know what the sources should be saying here, so any source that says otherwise is unreliable!" It should be obvious why that argument is frivolous. It's also WP:FALSEBALANCE - our rules aren't about ensuring that the coverage subjects get from reliable sources is "fair and balanced" in that sense, they're about ensuring that we cover what the sources actually say, evaluating that coverage in a neutral way. Suggesting that we should ignore it because "the sources are wrong to cover these people" is a WP:NPOV violation in that you're effectively arguing we should replace the coverage of reliable sources with your own personal preferences and outlook on the situation. --Aquillion (talk) 19:28, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- The sources such as Bandy's Lee's book and related material have all the appearances of hyper-partisan hatchet pieces. Since such hyper-partisan opinions are unlikely to be presented by reputable neutral psychiatrists, those that would do such a thing are doing so only from an unscientific manner of diagnostic care, and they lack the thorough vetting and support of the primary accrediting entity of that profession. The fact that that entity says "we do not do this" is the exact reason Lee spends a fair amount of time in her opening dialogue of her book discrediting the very entity that sets Hippocratic standards for her profession, a standard she overtly abrogates to present a less than likely scenario that Trump is a "national emergency" a "threat to the United States and global security", etc. Such hyperbolic sensationalism is definitively fringe. The Foreward in Lee's book is written by Jeffrey Sachs, who opens with telling us Trump is dangerous (though he himself is NOT a psychiatrist, he's a Keynesian economist) and then he too says that the APA's guidelines on presenting armchair diagnostics should be ignored and also discredits this primary accrediting entity, as grounds and justification to ignore their credo cause, trump is "dangerous".--MONGO (talk) 14:45, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- The Goldwater rule puts ‘armchair diagnosis’ as unethical and unprofessional... The professional organizations commonly form the scientific consensus here, and thus such armchair diagnosis is WP:FRINGE, not WP:MAINSTREAM. Whether we mention such or not, WP Policy says we should not portray such as more notable or accepted than it is, in particular portraying it as mental health professionals, and WP:ONEWAY would possibly say to not mention it at all. Frankly, mentioning it would seem to require including a lot more saying the response and clarifying it as a fringe group or sensational tabloidy book and just another poor use of this BLP space for yet another snipe included. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 12:17, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- The Goldwater rule has no relevance. Mental health professionals must decide whether reporting their opinions on Trump violates the rule and news media and other reliable sources must determine whether it should affect their reporting of these findings. All that Wikipedia editors should consider is what has been reported in reliable sources. It is original research to evaluate the truth and ethics of the statements. TFD (talk) 16:25, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- The argument that if its covered in RS's it is fair game for inclusion is a valid one within policy. However, we are the editors here and not beholden to parrot every storyline about what some fear mongering anti-Trumpians "think", regardless of their credentials. Should this nonsense be placed in the article, proper rebuttal of this sort of armchair hyper-partisan fear mongering that the President is a "danger to the Untied States and global security" needs to be properly counterbalanced. "Why experts are split over Trump’s mental health"[24], "Before diagnosing Trump as mentally ill, let’s ask what that actually means"[25], and an opinion piece by another well credentialed member of the APA, but all we have is opinions as well from the fear mongerers like Bandy Lee here "An Eminent Psychiatrist Demurs on Trump’s Mental State"[26] where it is stated, "Most amateur diagnosticians have mislabeled President Trump with the diagnosis of narcissistic personality disorder. I wrote the criteria that define this disorder, and Mr. Trump doesn’t meet them. He may be a world-class narcissist, but this doesn’t make him mentally ill, because he does not suffer from the distress and impairment required to diagnose mental disorder."--MONGO (talk) 16:57, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- The question is not whether reliable sources report on this but rather whether it should be accorded substantial weight in the article. You can find many references to fringe theories like Flat Earth or Anti-Vaxx in reliable sources. But they represent a fringe theory and should not be accorded much weight at all. Similarly, the idea that an armchair diagnosis has validity is a fringe theory that is not endorsed by any major psychological/psychiatric organization. These WP:DUE/WP:FRINGE concerns are only amplified by WP:BLP problems. Should a fringe theory be advanced in an biography of a living person? Absolutely not. Cosmic Sans (talk) 21:38, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Clarification regarding Goldwater rule
It's come to my attention that some editors have been making the claim that Wikipedia isn't bound by the guidelines of the American Psychiatric Association. While that is obviously true, it is not the point of the Goldwater rule. The aim is to delegitimise such diagnosis. We should make sure that we are reporting a consensus view, and not a fringe or unsupported view, similar to views on climate change. ADDED: This rule may be important in how we address the mental health claims, but is by no means an objection to either publishing or assessing certain claims. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:05, 19 July 2019 (UTC) Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:49, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
- What does climate change have to do with this? 2600:1702:2340:9470:D0BE:E5E0:F5FB:22FF (talk) 02:50, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
- The GW does not "delegitimise" people's comments at all, or make them "fringe". Not all of the many people who have commented on his mental status are bound by the Goldwater Rule, and some of those that are members of organizations that do have that guideline said they felt the "Duty to warn" (another ethical and legal rule for such professionals) took precedence. As for "consensus", many thousands of professionals have expressed alarm about his mental status. I am not aware of any comparably large movement among mental health professionals to balance that, by stating that in their opinion Trump has no serious mental health issues. Are you? -- MelanieN (talk) 03:18, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
- Duty to warn of course refers to clients who are under the care of a clinician and the patient then discloses they are or otherwise present as a risk to themselves or others. It does not, to my knowledge, cover armchair diagnoses of people not under the care of a clinician making the claim.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 03:57, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
- As reported by RS, a significant number of MH professionals interpret duty to warn differently than you do, and I daresay they are more qualified than you or I to interpret it. In any case such arguments are outside our purview as Wikipedia editors, as has been articulated multiple times in this RfC. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:02, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
- Please provide a single WP:MEDRS reliable source of a professional body or legal text which defines duty to warn that way. And actually, duty to warn is a legal thing so it is lawyers and courts that define it, so individual mental health experts are not the best people to “reinterpret” what the legal profession working with professional mental health bodies have defined for civil negligence cases and professional care of patients, etc.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 05:14, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
- Sort of. It depends on the nature of the action: in many cases of professional negligence brought under common law principles (and this applies to all contemporary U.S. jurisdictions), the standard of care is expressly linked to a professional standard adopted by the majority of similarly situated professionals. But a duty to warn case is likely to be brought under a general, rather than professional, negligence claim, in which the plaintiff will have the burden of establishing that a duty existed and that it was breached (two elements of the prima facie case under traditional negligence law). Some states have statutory standards as well, and those are likely to be created with consultation between the legislative committee that first promulgated them and a professional advisory body of one sort or another. Anyway, this is irrelevant. There's exactly zero professional liability for psychologists failing to warn of such a generalized perceived dangers. When such experts speak about their "duty to warn", they are speaking in terms of their own moral compass, not legal liability. Snow let's rap 05:40, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
- Please provide a single WP:MEDRS reliable source of a professional body or legal text which defines duty to warn that way. And actually, duty to warn is a legal thing so it is lawyers and courts that define it, so individual mental health experts are not the best people to “reinterpret” what the legal profession working with professional mental health bodies have defined for civil negligence cases and professional care of patients, etc.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 05:14, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to agree, but all of this just underscores how much of a fruitless and ill-advised it is to undertake an effort to put ourselves in the place as some sort of self-appointed ethical watchdog over the psychiatric profession. I can't imagine anything more WP:OR or irrelevant to a content determination under our polices. And anyway Onetwothreeip's original point is a complete misapprehension of how the Goldwater Rule operates. It does not "delegitimize" any conclusions reached that were made in breach of the rule--that's complete fiction that has no basis in the wording of the rule or the professional complications that arise out of it. The rule arose as a means to try to keep the image of the profession, not because anyone really believed that it was completely impossible to diagnose someone short of an in-person interview. I very much assure you that if you show me five videos of individuals engaging in conversation, and one of them is suffering from cognitive impairment as the result of recent transient ischemia, I can almost certainly tell you which person it is, even if there is no motor/speech production impairment involved. The analysis is even more one-sided when assessing psychological conditions not arising out of neurological impairment (that is, more "purely" psychological issues): there is way more material out there to examine with regard to Trump than the average psychiatrist gets with regard to their average patient--it amounts far more than appropriate corpus from which to derive a diagnosis that is at least as reliable as one based on one (or even a handful) of in-person interviews.
- As reported by RS, a significant number of MH professionals interpret duty to warn differently than you do, and I daresay they are more qualified than you or I to interpret it. In any case such arguments are outside our purview as Wikipedia editors, as has been articulated multiple times in this RfC. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:02, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
- Duty to warn of course refers to clients who are under the care of a clinician and the patient then discloses they are or otherwise present as a risk to themselves or others. It does not, to my knowledge, cover armchair diagnoses of people not under the care of a clinician making the claim.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 03:57, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
- The GW does not "delegitimise" people's comments at all, or make them "fringe". Not all of the many people who have commented on his mental status are bound by the Goldwater Rule, and some of those that are members of organizations that do have that guideline said they felt the "Duty to warn" (another ethical and legal rule for such professionals) took precedence. As for "consensus", many thousands of professionals have expressed alarm about his mental status. I am not aware of any comparably large movement among mental health professionals to balance that, by stating that in their opinion Trump has no serious mental health issues. Are you? -- MelanieN (talk) 03:18, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
- So, again, the Goldwater Rule didn't arise because psychiatrists believed long-distance diagnosis was impossible or even particularly more difficult: it arose because soem psychiatrists believed it was unethical to engage in the practice of medical diagnosis without the consent of the person being diagnozed, and because the Goldwater case caused a lot of political blow back and bad PR for the profession. It was a pragmatic decision made for the welfare and status of the profession, not out of a belief that remote diagnosis was impossible. But absolutely none of that should matter, or need to be said here, because this entire line of discussion is just us engaging in WP:OR about what the members of the profession are capable of an how they assess their evidence and professional liabilities. While I have nothign but confidence in everything I have explained above, this is no more appropriate here than if we were comparing the statements of an RS news article about crime statistics against our own personal experience: it is clearly, manifestly, directly against how we are meant to be judging the appropriateness of content on the basis of WP:WEIGHT.
- Anyway MelanieN's other points are more relevant: only a small fraction of experts who might comment on Trump's mental health are members of the APA and bound by the Goldwater Rule. Look, let's break this down:
- 1) Only a portion of the many types of experts who might have expertise to comment on someone's mental health are going to be psychiatrists. Let's be incredibly generous here and say that figure is 50% (it's actually not even nearly that large, but let's just start there). So we're at 50%
- 2) Only a small fraction of psychiatrists in the world are licensed in the U.S.--let's say 10% (again, it's much smaller than that, but let's be generous). 10% of 50% is 5%.
- 3) Among licensed American psychiatrists, less than 44% are members of the APA. (Yeah, that's right, less than half). 44% of 5% is 2.2%. In other words, of all the possible experts in the world who might qualified to speak as to someone's mental health in some professional or researcher capacity, well less than 2.2% are bound by the Goldwater Rule (and in reality its significantly less than even that). Violating it has zero impact on the reliability of the conclusion the expert arrives at, for purposes of our policies.
- 2) Only a small fraction of psychiatrists in the world are licensed in the U.S.--let's say 10% (again, it's much smaller than that, but let's be generous). 10% of 50% is 5%.
- 1) Only a portion of the many types of experts who might have expertise to comment on someone's mental health are going to be psychiatrists. Let's be incredibly generous here and say that figure is 50% (it's actually not even nearly that large, but let's just start there). So we're at 50%
- So...yeah, it's really beyond time to drop this line of reasoning: Aquillion already put it succinctly above--anyone pushing this as a editorially significant factor is merely torpedoing any credability in the rest of their argument. It doesn't hold up on any level, either as a factual matter or with regard to how our policies dictate we should evaluate sources. Snow let's rap 05:23, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
- Anyway MelanieN's other points are more relevant: only a small fraction of experts who might comment on Trump's mental health are members of the APA and bound by the Goldwater Rule. Look, let's break this down:
- There's a difference between psychiatry and psychology. Here's an article written by psychologists at Emory U, U of Georgia, and Purdue U (also available as PDF):
Although the Goldwater Rule prohibits psychiatrists from offering diagnostic opinions on individuals they have never examined, no comparable rule exists for psychologists. ...there are select cases in which psychological scientists with suitable expertise may harbor a “duty to inform,” allowing them to offer informed opinions concerning public figures’ mental health with appropriate caveats. ... First, we propose that although psychologists should typically refrain from offering diagnoses of public figures, they should be able to do so when these individuals hold positions of substantial power over others, as is the case for most high-profile politicians.
Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 05:32, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
- There's a difference between psychiatry and psychology. Here's an article written by psychologists at Emory U, U of Georgia, and Purdue U (also available as PDF):
- Yeah, and they put the duty to inform in speech marks to emphasise that such experts are expanding or changing or otherwise going beyond the accepted legal and professional meaning of duty to inform. Basically the author is describing the psyche and motives of many psychologists for publicly giving opinion on Trump.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 05:39, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
- None of which matters, because those experts are under no duty to obey the Goldwater Rule regardless of whether they also have a competing duty to warn. They can ignore the Goldwater Rule just because they think it nonsense and it has zero per se impact on their authority as experts. It just doesn't apply to them. And for the record, I agree with you that this "duty to warn" discussion is a red herring. But it's a half ounce red herring being swallowed up by the two-ton Red Herring that is the suggestion that the Goldwater Rule prevents us from using the sources here. There are many reasonable arguments for why we might not want to go down the avenue of discussing Trump's mental health. The Goldwater Rule isn't one of them--not in this universe, anyway. Snow let's rap 05:50, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, and they put the duty to inform in speech marks to emphasise that such experts are expanding or changing or otherwise going beyond the accepted legal and professional meaning of duty to inform. Basically the author is describing the psyche and motives of many psychologists for publicly giving opinion on Trump.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 05:39, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
- MelanieN and others, I am not saying that any particular mental health assessment of Donald Trump is fringe, but we can't accept a single person's assessment and present it as factual or reliable. That would be comparable to accepting fringe views based on one scientist's view of climate change or the September 11 attacks. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:10, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
- We do have armchair Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and petitions with armchair professionals signing them, which is very similar to what is being proposed for this article except since D. Trump has not been formally assessed armchair fringe opinion is being proposed to be given undue weight because it cannot be opposed by a proper assessment.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 08:44, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
- Please stop the strawmanning. This RfC proposes exactly nothing specific for this article. That petition is far from the only thing that will be on the table in follow-on discussion if this RfC passes, and I for one have opposed mention of it precisely because of the absence of controls on it. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:54, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
- We do have armchair Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and petitions with armchair professionals signing them, which is very similar to what is being proposed for this article except since D. Trump has not been formally assessed armchair fringe opinion is being proposed to be given undue weight because it cannot be opposed by a proper assessment.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 08:44, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
- Citing the Goldwater rule as an objection is classic synthesis. It requires us to assess opinions of experts in reliable sources based on standards of a professional body. Not only that, but we have to interpret those standards and assess whether there are exceptions based on another standard. There is no basis in policy or guidelines to do this. The justification for using it is that it shows that the opinion Trump has NCD is fringe and lacks weight. But we don't need the Goldwater rule to make that determination. We determine that in every article without having to assess the methodology used by writers of reliable sources. We do that by assessing the degree of their acceptance in the body of literature. TFD (talk) 17:17, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
- The attempt to marginalise the APA is misguided. The number of psychiatrists who are members of the association are not the same as the people influenced by it. The APA's DSM-5 is used worldwide, including in Australia. The Royal College of Psychiatrists in the UK follow a similar rule to the Goldwater Rule.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:29, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- Literaturegeek, replying to your comment of 22:58, 21 July. By "experts" I wasn't referring to a handful of experts who hold an opinion different from most experts. No one would say, according to experts, 9/11 was a false flag operation. TFD (talk) 01:02, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Evaluating a patient
You all seem to not know much about psychology. I was in practice for years, and here are some things you need to know; it takes hours to evaluate an adult patient for serious mental illness, and sometimes even more then one visit. That said, they have to actually visit for you to even do an evaluation. I've seen many patients who acted out in public, showing signs of certain illnesses, yet when their parents or friends brought them in, they were completely fine. They had just acted foolish in public, but there was nothing to worry about, other than their immaturity. What you see on the outside does not necessarily concur with what is on the inside. Although Trump may act like he has certain problems, it is foolish to try and pin them to certain illnesses without actually examining him in person. 98.164.149.85 (talk) 20:29, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
- Please don't lump us together as "you all", since many fellow editors are here seeking to have the controversy over Trump's mental health included as exactly that, being not in the least inclined to include any diagnoses, being as none are fully informed by treating Trump. Us all sticking to the point of there being widespread controversy, and whether mention should be included, would preclude a lot of haranguing.
- "I've seen many patients who acted out in public, showing signs of certain illnesses, yet when their parents or friends brought them in, they were completely fine. They had just acted foolish in public, but there was nothing to worry about, other than their immaturity" presents quite a kettle of fish, and is highly subjective, but, being immaterial to this discussion, I'll not address it, and cross me weary fingers in the hope that this discussion does not further devolve with it.Lindenfall (talk) 22:01, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
- No offence but we have no idea whether or not you are a psychiatrist...how on earth can you prove the person isn`t acting out in the office by attempting to appear normal ? 2600:1702:2340:9470:DD11:33A3:B552:F2E (talk) 22:11, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
- He or she never said he or she was a psychiatrist.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:15, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- He implied it..he claims to have seen many patients...what else can that imply ? 2600:1702:2340:9470:1D6F:5AAA:65B:C781 (talk) 02:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- Well there is such a thing as a practicing psychologist. Unlike psychiatrists, they are not medical doctors and thus cannot provide anything that constitutes medical treatment, but some states allow them to register to provide limited forms of personal therapy--these professionals may at times refer to their clientele as patients. However our IP actually does now claim to be a psychiatrist in the !votes above now. Considering this IP starts out saying "You people do not know how psychology works!" and then immediately starts to describe the work of a therapist, and now identifies as a psychiatrist above, combined with their fairly lay-speech peppered description of the work, I'm feeling the chances of them genuinely being a psychiatrist are extremely low. But again, it doesn't matter: what they are peddling here is WP:Original research whether they are Robert Spitzer or Joe Internet. Snow let's rap 04:07, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- I have serious doubts about the IP's claims, but that's not the real issue with the comment: this is completely irrelevant WP:original research that has absolutely no bearing on how we evaluate a source or establish WP:WEIGHT from among multiple sources. This entire subthread should probably be deleted or at least hatted: it has no bearing on any policy or particular piece of content. Not that this is surprising: the IP (legitimately a practicing psychologist or not) may not know better than that our WP:Talk pagess are WP:NOTAFORUM to discuss these issues at length, and what else are they supposed to think but that such OR is appropriate here, after a platform has already been erected on any even larger piece of WP:original research; namely the argument that because a tiny portion of psychological experts are members of an organization that has the Goldwater Rule, we are bound to omit any mention of any statement that we (in our idiosyncratic impression as editors on Wikipedia) decide violates it--even if the given expert isn't one of the (very small number of) experts who are members of the APA! When that argument, clearly a non-starter under our policies (and well beyond our legitimate remit as editors on this project), is being seriously advanced to try to block any mention of this topic (which I personally think is fertile ground for debate, but just not on -this- rationale), its no wonder we have IPs dropping in claiming to be expertss. Of course they think such blatant original research is meaningful here, given the indications they have seen in the discussion above... Snow let's rap 01:13, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- He implied it..he claims to have seen many patients...what else can that imply ? 2600:1702:2340:9470:1D6F:5AAA:65B:C781 (talk) 02:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- He or she never said he or she was a psychiatrist.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:15, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- No offence but we have no idea whether or not you are a psychiatrist...how on earth can you prove the person isn`t acting out in the office by attempting to appear normal ? 2600:1702:2340:9470:DD11:33A3:B552:F2E (talk) 22:11, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
- "I've seen many patients who acted out in public, showing signs of certain illnesses, yet when their parents or friends brought them in, they were completely fine. They had just acted foolish in public, but there was nothing to worry about, other than their immaturity" presents quite a kettle of fish, and is highly subjective, but, being immaterial to this discussion, I'll not address it, and cross me weary fingers in the hope that this discussion does not further devolve with it.Lindenfall (talk) 22:01, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
- I think that most editors are aware that diagnostics requires an evaluation by a professional who has examined the patient. The same is true for physical illnesses, which is why people visit doctors and Wikipedia acknowledges this by having the Identifying reliable sources (medicine) guideline. The problem is that we cannot second guess reliable sources per Synthesis of published material. We can't say that a book including contributions from medical experts and published by Yale University is wrong because it used the wrong methodology. That discussion is supposed to take place among experts and we are supposed to ensure that this article provides the same weight to the issue that news media does and explain the degree of acceptance or rejection of the diagnosis among the professional community of mental health experts. I think they have provided little credence to it for the reasons you mentioned, and therefore it deserves little or no mention. At present I have not seen sufficient coverage for inclusion. But as a psychologist, you could help in telling us what the community says about this specific case, and provide sources. TFD (talk) 00:56, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- This process seems to take the decision-making away from experts and give it to the ignorant.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:35, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- I disagree. Let's reframe the issue to match how our policies define the matter: it's not our place to WP:synthesize conclusions about what we think the experts will think about their fellow experts, based on what we know (or with regard to many !votes here, what people think they know) about the profession. The experts can speak for themselves, through publication, interview or public statement, and we utilize those statements (or not) in accordance with our WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:NPOV/WP:WEIGHT policies. If other experts feel inclined to distance themselves from those statements, or to vet, analyze, comment upon, or reject them, or to question the methodology (or the ethics) of the original expert, they can do so as well--individually or as professional bodies--and we can report those statements (as long as they too meet RS standards) as well--or factor them into the weight analysis in other respects.
- What we cannot do, under our policies, is take a professional standard, put ourselves in the shoes of a professional body as if we are similarly positioned expert members of those bodies who formulate and apply that standard, and decide on their behalf that we know what they would think of the statement, based on our own plain reading of a standard. That is clearly, unambiguously, manifestly, beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt, textbook WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. THAT would be the uninformed trying to step into the role of experts, as you put it. Or more to the point for our purposes on this project, into the role of reliable sources. Beyond that, as has been repeated ad nauseum, only a small fraction of psychological experts work as professionals subject to this rule--and only where they elect to be members of the APA, which represents less than 44% of practitioners in the U.S. (which, it apparently it needs to be repeated here, is just one of many nations with experts in the psychological, psychiatric, and cognitive sciences...). Snow let's rap 03:14, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Jack Upland:, quite the opposite. We allow experts to determine how to interpret their own rules and procedures and report their conclusions instead of editors' conclusions. Some editors have mentioned the Goldwater rule and others about warning about imminent dangers and suggest we read through psychology texts to determine which one applies, and ignore what experts say about it. TFD (talk) 04:50, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- You do realise that your argument is the same one used by supporters of these armchair experts: Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. These experts commenting on Trump have no way of knowing how D. Trump is outside the political, legal and business world as they have not asked him pertinent questions, interviewed family members etc. Much like the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth who never examine the raw evidence, interviewed relevant witnesses etc. The narcissistic behaviour could be his personality or it could be a winning tactic he has learnt through his life experiences, he needs a proper assessment for that. Ben Carson says he is a completely different person off camera.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- It's clear that the prestigious APA and the Royal College of Psychiatrists in the UK and common knowledge say that psychiatrists and psychologists need to examine the patient before making a diagnosis. So why, why, why rely on the opinions of practitioners who have never examined Trump??? This might be interesting but it is not encyclopedic. To say that the few practitioners who have broke ranks and commented on Trump are the "experts" is supremely illogical. The Goldwater rule is respected by the majority worldwide. A small minority doesn't become a majority because it is noisy.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:43, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- You do realise that your argument is the same one used by supporters of these armchair experts: Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. These experts commenting on Trump have no way of knowing how D. Trump is outside the political, legal and business world as they have not asked him pertinent questions, interviewed family members etc. Much like the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth who never examine the raw evidence, interviewed relevant witnesses etc. The narcissistic behaviour could be his personality or it could be a winning tactic he has learnt through his life experiences, he needs a proper assessment for that. Ben Carson says he is a completely different person off camera.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Jack Upland:, quite the opposite. We allow experts to determine how to interpret their own rules and procedures and report their conclusions instead of editors' conclusions. Some editors have mentioned the Goldwater rule and others about warning about imminent dangers and suggest we read through psychology texts to determine which one applies, and ignore what experts say about it. TFD (talk) 04:50, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- The argument you are advancing there is textbook, unambiguous WP:original research. What your argument boils down to is this:
"I have a large number of experts advancing an opinion in WP:Reliable sources that I personally find dubious, but rather than treat those as a product of WP:WEIGHT and try to keep these opinions within perspective with a careful approach to the content, I am going to try to block their entry into the article entirely, by taking a professional standard I am in no remote way trained or qualified to understand the operation or nuances of and I will apply that rule myself (however I wish, as an uninformed layperson filtering this rule through my own idiosyncratic lens) to arrive at a conclusion that the source is very bad--even though I am operating here as Wikipedia editor (not a disagreeing expert or member of professional body) and not only does Wikipedia policy not validate this kind of 'put myself in the place of the expert' reasoning, but in fact expressly forbids it as one of the fundamental principles of neutral editing based on reliable sources and not the personal conjecture of our editors."
- The argument you are advancing there is textbook, unambiguous WP:original research. What your argument boils down to is this:
- And I'm sorry, but we are just not allowed to do that on this project, no matter how passionately we feel about an expert's opinion or how they arrived at it. Even those of us who actually do have a formal background in medicine or the cognitive and psychological sciences are not allowed to do that when we are operating as editors here. If another expert or other reliable source criticizes the original expert's opinion, by all means, we can use that in the WP:WEIGHT analysis. But what cannot do is advance our personal perspectives/judgments on the expert opinion (or their methodology) as if our own opinion themselves have weight, because our personal opinions as editors have this much weight precisely in a content determination: 0.00000%. The approach pushed for here is not just borderline original research, is paradigmatic original research. Indeed, in all my years on the project I have scarcely ever seen such a sustained, inappropriate push for such a blatantly OR argument. I don't think everyone supporting it is doing so just out of bias (I think legitimate concerns do underpin some of this), but anyone advancing this argument has well lost track of their appropriate role as editors here, which is not to place themselves in the roles of the RS/experts.
- I very seriously hope that (for the sake of the point being explicit) the closer of this discussion not only finds for a consensus to some discussion of the topic here, per WP:WEIGHT, but also makes express mention of WP:PNSD and points out that they had to disregard a large number of !votes here that just could not be resolved to broader community consensus as established in our basic editorial policies, because so many opposes chose to embrace this (clearly unsupportable) notion that there is community consensus for the editors on this project applying outside professional tests in the place of our WP:V and WP:RS policies. The most troubling consequence of all of this is that there are many very legitimate policy reasons for being concerned about opening the door on this topic. But rather than discussing how we will keep the content policy consistent and representing limited WP:DUE weight, the goal posts have instead been changed to this hail mary/all-or-nothing tactic, that (having no basis in policy/community consensus) will not hold for long and will only lead to more polarized discussion once it crumbles away and the work on the actual content has to begin. I fear the ultimate content will suffer as a consequence--and probably in a way that the present "oppose" !votes will least want.
- Also, as regards
"The Goldwater rule is respected by the majority worldwide. A small minority doesn't become a majority because it is noisy."
That is simply factually incorrect--and is, if I am to put it bluntly, one of the reasons I know you are dilettante speculating/making grand statements about professional standards you aren't truly familiar with. Even if we confine ourselves to American practitioners and limit our inquiry to physicians and psychiatrists (which represent only a subset of experts who may have an opinion as to subject matter), then we can easily determine how many of them are subject to the Goldwater Rule and just how bound they are by it. First, nobody is professionally bound to it: it is not a rule which you will lose your license. Rather, it is merely a rule adopted by two at will professional organizations that psychiatrists may join, if they wish: the APA and the AMA. And the may part is important, because only 25% of currently practicing physicians are members of the AMA and 43% of all practicing psychiatrists join the APA. You may recognize those figures as much smaller than the "majority worldwide" that you (falsely) assert, because the figures of psychiatrists bound to the standard outside the U.S. are even smaller--and, as has been stated at length here previously, psychiatrists represent just one of several types of expert who may be qualified to speak as to a person's cognitive abilities or mental health, many of whom are in no way bound to the standard of the Goldwater Rule to begin with.
- Also, as regards
- Of course, none of the last paragraph should even need to be raised into the discussion, because even if it were the case that 100% of psychiatrists worldwide were members of the APA, it would still be WP:original research for editors on this project to apply the standard on their behalf. But the blatant misinformation about the exact proportions of professionals operating under the rule that has been advanced here deserves correction, regardless. Snow let's rap 03:00, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- I think that misses the point. The question isn't how many psychiatrists are members of the APA or are bound by the Goldwater Rule. The point is that prestigious bodies like the APA and the Royal College of Psychiatrists in the UK believe that psychiatric diagnosis without examining the patient is worthless. So should we put worthless speculation in the article?--Jack Upland (talk) 00:21, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Jack Upland: - the link you provided aptly demonstrated "damned if I do, damned if I don't". So public 'diagnoses' are according to Simon Wessely, head of the Royal College of Psychiatrists in the UK,
usually also facile and stating the obvious, unless it’s based on real, serious, inside information; in which case you should and will be struck off before nightfall. And deserve to be."
Wessley goes on to argueWhen someone is dead, I think it’s different ... historians are still better at it, though
. So Wessley is acknowledging historians have more knowledge about mental health issues than psychiatrists likewhether JFK’s steroid intake influenced his judgment in the Bay of Pigs
. starship.paint (talk) 03:20, 28 July 2019 (UTC)- So let's wait for the historians.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:31, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed. We shall just have to wait about 5-10 years after Trump leaves office (either in Jan. 2021 or 2025) to even begin to make real, truly unbiased statements. (i.e. That's how long I think we will have to wait until the dust surrounding Trump finally settles). Mgasparin (talk) 02:56, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- So let's wait for the historians.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:31, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Jack Upland: - the link you provided aptly demonstrated "damned if I do, damned if I don't". So public 'diagnoses' are according to Simon Wessely, head of the Royal College of Psychiatrists in the UK,
- I think that misses the point. The question isn't how many psychiatrists are members of the APA or are bound by the Goldwater Rule. The point is that prestigious bodies like the APA and the Royal College of Psychiatrists in the UK believe that psychiatric diagnosis without examining the patient is worthless. So should we put worthless speculation in the article?--Jack Upland (talk) 00:21, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Racial views ? Better heading?
Can we come up with a better section heading than Racial views, which validates the oft-invoked deflection that hate speech is just another valid opinion in our liberal democratic discourse?
@MelanieN: I understand that we'll need to figure this out on the talk page, but are you also saying there was specific and explicit discussion and consensus relating to that header in the past, or just that it's longstanding and should remain in place until we can fix it? Under the current page sanction, unless I'm mistaken, there wouldn't be any particular reason to leave longstanding text in place except when an explicit discussion and consensus had been reached. At any rate, can we figure out a header that refers to Trump's speech and actions relating to race without treating them as opinions?
Any suggestions? SPECIFICO talk 22:44, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
- Hi, SPECIFICO. No, I don't think there has been any specific discussion about that section heading; as far as I can tell the only consensus-certified rule here about racial views is the wording of the sentence in the lead section. The applicable policy here, per DS, is that you can be bold and change something, but if someone objects by reverting it, you have to go the talk page, discuss, and wait at least 24 hours. I have seen more knowledgeable admins add that the longstanding version is the default until there is consensus to for a change, but the written rule implies that you can make the change again. Of course, I can revert it again! while we both observe 1RR.
- Setting aside the DS rules which almost nobody really understands, here's the issue: you changed the section header from "Racial views" to "Racism"; I changed it back. Here's my reasoning: based on what sources are now (finally finding the courage) to say, we can call his comments racist, but we can't call him racist. I am open to other wordings besides "racial views" - although note that is the title of our forked article. I am not open to calling the section simply "racism," because that is too much like saying he (rather than what he says) is racist, and the sources have not gone that far.
- Other people: what should we call that section? Racial views, or Racism, or something else? -- MelanieN (talk) 00:10, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
I think this should be "Racial views", just as our subpage about it.My very best wishes (talk) 00:33, 21 July 2019 (UTC)- How do we deal with the issue that "views" enables disagreement about racism? I think that "Racial views" article has been kind of a mess because a broad cross section of editors feel the title is weaselly or OR, since we do not have sources discussing Trump's "views" when he says and does what he does and says. I'm sure a better title for that article will eventually be found. Is it a "view" that typical Mexican immigrants are rapists? That opens the door to all kinds of bad stuff -- scientific racism, etc. SPECIFICO talk 01:00, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- I do not disagree with you, but this is more frequently described as "views" [27]. Personally, I am more troubled by the crowds who supported him by chanting "send her back", the crowd who quite possibly will elect him a president again, precisely because he has such views. The historical analogy is obvious. My very best wishes (talk) 01:48, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- Well, in that instance it was "incitements" rather than "views".
- When we all began working on these articles 3 years ago, the mainstream press was ill prepared and did not fully understand the phenomena on which it was reporting. For that reason, the mainstream narratives treated Trump's provocations and some of his actions as if they were good faith errors or the blunders of ignorance or inexperience. Mainstream reporting and discussion generally presented Trump mostly at face value. That has changed in 2019, I think. There's now frank discussion of Trump's use of racist narratives and actions to arouse his supporters. The WP articles contain much language from years back during the period of false equivalencies and weaseling in the mainstream press. That's largely ended and these articles need to be updated and made more straightforward, reflecting current mainstream sources. SPECIFICO talk 02:17, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- I do not disagree with you, but this is more frequently described as "views" [27]. Personally, I am more troubled by the crowds who supported him by chanting "send her back", the crowd who quite possibly will elect him a president again, precisely because he has such views. The historical analogy is obvious. My very best wishes (talk) 01:48, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- How do we deal with the issue that "views" enables disagreement about racism? I think that "Racial views" article has been kind of a mess because a broad cross section of editors feel the title is weaselly or OR, since we do not have sources discussing Trump's "views" when he says and does what he does and says. I'm sure a better title for that article will eventually be found. Is it a "view" that typical Mexican immigrants are rapists? That opens the door to all kinds of bad stuff -- scientific racism, etc. SPECIFICO talk 01:00, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- I agree that what is significant isn't necessarily that Trump may have racist views, but that he uses racist language in order to energize his base. So I think the section could be renamed. I think though that incitement lacks an impartial tone. Maybe something like "appeals to racism" or "use of racist language?" I would point out that there is no dispute in reliable sources that the language used was racist, so we can't use phrasing that suggests it might not be. We can then mention the discussion of whether Trump himself is racist. TFD (talk) 17:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- Something like "Appeals to racism" or "Use of racist language" would be OK and would be in line with what Reliable Sources are now (finally) saying. However it would omit some of his ACTIONS such as the housing discrimination cases. Whatever we choose has to be supported by sources. "Racist language" certainly is and I think "appeals to racism" probably is also. I haven't seen much discussion about whether he himself is a racist - vs. using racism for his own advantage whether he believes in it or not. (There is some question whether he believes in anything other than himself and what is best for him.) -- MelanieN (talk) 18:18, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- Yes RS are finally saying that, but as importantly they are also saying he let Puerto Ricans, lawful immigrants, and others suffer and die while associating himself with those events via TV appearances and narratives. I suppose we could use 2 or 3 pithy words that combine racist speech and racist actions, great, e.g. Racist speech and actions. But failing that, what's wrong with the simpler, neutral, descriptive word "Racism" as a title that encompasses all these race-related factors? Note: we do not and should not call him a "racist" and we should not say he has "racist beliefs" or otherwise project these incitements and other actions onto his person or consciousness. SPECIFICO talk 18:47, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- Something like "Appeals to racism" or "Use of racist language" would be OK and would be in line with what Reliable Sources are now (finally) saying. However it would omit some of his ACTIONS such as the housing discrimination cases. Whatever we choose has to be supported by sources. "Racist language" certainly is and I think "appeals to racism" probably is also. I haven't seen much discussion about whether he himself is a racist - vs. using racism for his own advantage whether he believes in it or not. (There is some question whether he believes in anything other than himself and what is best for him.) -- MelanieN (talk) 18:18, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- I agree that what is significant isn't necessarily that Trump may have racist views, but that he uses racist language in order to energize his base. So I think the section could be renamed. I think though that incitement lacks an impartial tone. Maybe something like "appeals to racism" or "use of racist language?" I would point out that there is no dispute in reliable sources that the language used was racist, so we can't use phrasing that suggests it might not be. We can then mention the discussion of whether Trump himself is racist. TFD (talk) 17:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- Just noting that whatever you put in the section title is interpreted as referring to the subject of the article. So a title of "Racism" would be interpreted as "Donald Trump's racism" the same as "Early life and education" is interpreted as "Donald Trump's early life and education" ~Awilley (talk) 19:46, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- That is not the same thing as labeling him a "racist". Overwhelming RS narrative refers to Trump's racism in his speech, conduct, and incitements without tagging him a "racist" creature. SPECIFICO talk 20:43, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with Awilley. That's why I removed it, and that's why I oppose it. "Racism" is too much like saying "He is a racist," and sources are not doing that. Let's find some compromise language; it doesn't look like plain "Racism" is going to sell here. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:24, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- Well, an alternative would be to say Racist speech and policies which is the mainstream RS presentation and also addresses Awilley's stated concern that racism might be referring to his inner existence rather than his words and deeds. So far I don't see much substantive opposition to "racism" -- including from you and Awilley, if I understand you correctly, who seem to anticipate misinterpretation of language, even when it's the same language dominating RS coverage.
- Another way to address your concern would be to use the header "Racism" and to open the section with a sentence that makes clear that the section is about Trump's actions, namely his appeals to, enabling of, and sympathies with "racism". That would make it clear why that title is the appropriate one while clarifying that we're not concerned with what's in his mind and heart but rather with conveying his words and deeds. I like that, actually. I think it addresses all views expressed here. SPECIFICO talk 21:33, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- I think that that seems like an excellent idea. Gandydancer (talk) 22:27, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with Awilley that new header would be interpreted as "Donald Trump's racism". But it appears we need exactly such header based on the recent coverage in sources. One can simply make Google search. Here is a typical example of publications about it. My very best wishes (talk) 01:49, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- I think a header of "Racism" would be pretty far from NPOV. Cosmic Sans (talk) 16:46, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Please explain why you believe this would not be neutral and why it would not reflect the section's content or cited sources? For reference, here is the opening lead of our article on the subject of WP:Racism:
Racism is the belief in the superiority of one race over another. It may also include prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone because they are of a different race or ethnicity, or the belief that members of different races or ethnicities should be treated differently. Modern variants are often based in social perceptions of biological differences between peoples. These can take the form of social actions, practices or beliefs, or political systems that consider different races to be ranked as inherently superior or inferior to each other, based on presumed shared inheritable traits, abilities, or qualities.
In terms of political systems (e.g., apartheid) that support the expression of prejudice or aversion in discriminatory practices or laws, racist ideology may include associated social aspects such as nativism, xenophobia, otherness, segregation, hierarchical ranking, and supremacism.
- SPECIFICO talk 17:09, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Letting the sources speak for themselves is one thing, but saying it in Wikipedia's voice is quite another. Cosmic Sans (talk) 17:32, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Well, when there is a consensus among mainstream RS, we do write in Wikipedia's voice. Do you find no such consensus in RS?
- I don't think it's appropriate in a header. Let the text and the sources speak for themselves. Cosmic Sans (talk) 17:45, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- The section describes numerous recurring instances of Trump's having categorized people, or their actions, or public policies, in terms of racial/ethnic/religious/national-origin characteristics. For better or worse, in a strictly descriptive sense, that is a racist mode of thought, speech, and action. WP:NOTCENSORED. That's the text that we, as editors, reflect in our choice of heading. The sources themselves do not speak in the heading. And the section describes not only speech but actions, which are not views. So the current heading is not speaking for the sources. We need a better one that is true to the content. BTW, nobody knows Trump's "views", we know only his words and deeds. SPECIFICO talk 17:42, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Wikipedia isn't censored, nor am I saying that it should be. But we have special concerns and considerations in writing a biography of a living person. I don't want to censor anything - the text and the sources can speak for themselves. Headers, though, are written entirely in Wikipedia's voice and provided without citation, so they should be as neutral as possible. Cosmic Sans (talk) 18:29, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- The section describes numerous recurring instances of Trump's having categorized people, or their actions, or public policies, in terms of racial/ethnic/religious/national-origin characteristics. For better or worse, in a strictly descriptive sense, that is a racist mode of thought, speech, and action. WP:NOTCENSORED. That's the text that we, as editors, reflect in our choice of heading. The sources themselves do not speak in the heading. And the section describes not only speech but actions, which are not views. So the current heading is not speaking for the sources. We need a better one that is true to the content. BTW, nobody knows Trump's "views", we know only his words and deeds. SPECIFICO talk 17:42, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think it's appropriate in a header. Let the text and the sources speak for themselves. Cosmic Sans (talk) 17:45, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Well, when there is a consensus among mainstream RS, we do write in Wikipedia's voice. Do you find no such consensus in RS?
- Letting the sources speak for themselves is one thing, but saying it in Wikipedia's voice is quite another. Cosmic Sans (talk) 17:32, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- I think a header of "Racism" would be pretty far from NPOV. Cosmic Sans (talk) 16:46, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with Awilley. That's why I removed it, and that's why I oppose it. "Racism" is too much like saying "He is a racist," and sources are not doing that. Let's find some compromise language; it doesn't look like plain "Racism" is going to sell here. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:24, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- That is not the same thing as labeling him a "racist". Overwhelming RS narrative refers to Trump's racism in his speech, conduct, and incitements without tagging him a "racist" creature. SPECIFICO talk 20:43, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- Just noting that whatever you put in the section title is interpreted as referring to the subject of the article. So a title of "Racism" would be interpreted as "Donald Trump's racism" the same as "Early life and education" is interpreted as "Donald Trump's early life and education" ~Awilley (talk) 19:46, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
@MelanieN:, to answer your earlier comment that to appeals to racism or use of racist language excludes mention of possibly racist actions such as housing discrimination, I don't think it does. Trump's use of racism raises the question of whether he has racist beliefs or is merely manipulating his supporters. His previous and current actions and even his father's actions in the KKK are relevant to that conversation. TFD (talk) 23:14, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
It seems to me that "racial views" doesn't precisely match up to Trump's views and actions, or even what the section contains. What this section is really documenting is Trump's relationship with others. I cannot think of a succinct way to make that into a section heading, and the philosophy may not be sufficiently understood by the broader Wikipedia readership. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:21, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
@SPECIFICO: You keep claiming that "racism" is a neutral word; I've seen you do it at least twice now. In a biography, that is ridiculous. Sure, there is a scholarly definition of the term. But applying it to an actual person is another kettle of fish - it could probably only be done for someone who says it themselves, "of course I believe in racism". What we have here, and what Reliable Sources have finally brought themselves to say, is someone who makes racist comments. (Notice that racist is an adjective, not a noun. They report that he says racist things; they do not say that he is a racist, and neither can we.) Awilley is right: using this as a section heading in a biography would mean that we, Wikipedia, are directly attributing racism to the biography's subject. Cosmic Sans is right: we can report his racist comments all we want, but we can't put it in the heading, because that means we are saying it in Wikipedia's voice. We need to find an acceptable heading - TFD suggested several - other than "Racism". Can we please discuss compromise headings, instead of your repeated insistence (bordering on bludgeoning) that it must be Racism and nothing else? Could you please consider responding to the suggestions that have been made here, rather than simply arguing with them? striking that; you have responded to suggested alternatives, although you always come back to "Racism". -- MelanieN (talk) 21:19, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Let’s focus the discussion more directly on what goes into the article. Here are some of the suggested headings for this section (which is a subsection under “Public profile:):
- Racial views
- Racism
- Racial incitement
- Appeals to racism
- Use of racist language
- Racist speech and action
- Racist speech and policies
- Racism plus an opening sentence that makes clear what the section is about (could we see proposed language for that sentence?)
- Adding: Allegations of racism
- Adding: Allegations of racism and xenophobia
Can we find agreement about one of these? Or other suggestions? -- MelanieN (talk) 21:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- I'd call it "Allegations of racism", and then list a few defining incidents as neutrally as possible. Details belong in the main article Racial views of Donald Trump, also wrongly titled, but that's for another debate. — JFG talk 12:28, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
It's not just racism here though. There's also xenophobia. The two are being conflated, even though they are essentially distinct from one another. That's why I mentioned "others" above, because it covers both. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- Correct, and I'd support calling this section "Allegations of racism and xenophobia". Indeed, xenophobia seems to be the dominant theme in the cited incidents. — JFG talk 12:41, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- I feel like this discussion is a solution in search of a problem. I don't see anything wrong with keeping it as "Racial views." I suppose "Allegations of racism and xenophobia" is okay as well. But surely there's a better use of our collective time and energy? Cosmic Sans (talk) 13:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- I also support keeping it at "Racial views". -- MelanieN (talk) 16:17, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- The implication of the language "Racism" for a section heading is that the charge of racism is sufficiently established that it can be used loosely. But there are certainly many reliable sources supporting that Donald Trump is not racist, obviating the possibility of using that damning language. "Racial views" by contrast is noncommittal on that question, consequently it is more neutral and preferable. Bus stop (talk) 16:48, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- A recurring problem with this "Racial views" heading is that nothing in the section conveys any views expressed by Trump about race relations or racism, besides his denial of being racist. Some of his words and deeds have been deemed racist or xenophobic by numerous commenters, but those are not Trump's "views", just other people's opinions about him. — JFG talk 01:03, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- The problem is that every other suggestion I have seen would also result in recurring arguments. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:04, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- A section heading is different from for instance a sentence making an assertion. A section heading is not making an assertion. A section heading identifies a topic. A section heading need not directly correspond to the contents of that section, except in a loose way. And that is precisely what is wrong with the section heading "Racism"—it corresponds loosely with the given section, implying the presence of evidence of racism. This is improper because it is not established that Trump is racist; it is only alleged, and probably only by his detractors. Bus stop (talk) 13:57, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Staring down KKK supporter at Rally
- I think this is pretty relevant given accusations that he is a white nationalist. Donald Trump stared down a protester wearing a t-shirt saying "KKK endorses Trump" before the protester was removed from the rally."Trump stares down man in 'KKK' shirt". CNN. February 27, 2016.The article seems to imply that it he is wishy washy against the KKK stating "After repeated questioning by reporters, Trump said that he disavowed David Duke and the KKK. Trump said on MSNBC's Morning Joe: "I disavowed him. I disavowed the KKK. Do you want me to do it again for the 12th time? I disavowed him in the past, I disavow him now." This shows him in action: "Disavowing" is a lot different from chasing someone off the stage. There is no synthesis since I am using CNN's headline?(talk) 04:21, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- A lot of them are nice people as well 2600:1702:2340:9470:11C:50E3:7342:D989 (talk) 05:13, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- Neither CNN's headline nor the text says that the protester is a KKK supporter. The video from the Republican primaries is dated two days after Duke said that voting against Trump was "voting against your heritage," Trump failing to distance himself from Duke immediately and then claiming that he didn't "know anything about Duke." All I see in this video is an anti-Trump protester referring to that and Trump saying that back in the good old days he would have been removed much more quickly and violently. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 05:18, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- I wrote: "In 2016, Donald Trump stared down a protester wearing a t-shirt saying "KKK endorses Trump" before the protester was removed from the rally." Where is your evidence he is an anti-Trump protester?Patapsco913 (talk) 05:23, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- You called him a "KKK supporter" in the section title. Here's the full CNN story on the incident: CNN. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 05:40, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- And your point is? Did you even read my edit on the article?? That is the issue. Why not put it in the article and let the readers decide? You are the one doing the synthesis. What is your point, eh?Patapsco913 (talk) 06:00, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- You called him a "KKK supporter" in the section title. Here's the full CNN story on the incident: CNN. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 05:40, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- Byrnes, Jesse (February 16, 2016). "Trump stares down protester wearing 'KKK endorses Trump' shirt". The Hill (newspaper).
- "Trump Protester with KKK T-Shirt Ejected". The Daily Beast. February 27, 2016.
- Sehmer, Alexander (February 27, 2016). "Man dressed in 'KKK endorses Trump' shirt thrown out of rally in Oklahoma". The Guardian.
- "Man wearing 'KKK' shirt thrown out of Trump rally". Washington Post. February 26, 2016.
- Parker, Asha (March 2, 2016). "This is what happens when Donald Trump catches you wearing a "KKK endorses Trump" t-shirt to his rally". Salon (website).
- Politi, Daniel (February 27, 2016). "Watch Donald Trump Stare Down a Protester Wearing a "KKK Endorses Trump" Shirt". Slate (magazine).
Well, if you put it that way, I guess my point is that you took a vague CNN teaser out of the context of their article and refuse to look at the evidence. The sign the "protester in the seats behind Trump" was holding read "Islamophobia is not the answer." It was ripped out of his hands by Trump supporters but before police arrived to eject him from the rally (that's what Trump was complaining about) he took off his jacket and revealed the T-shirt message and the yellow badge with "Mexican" written on it. Sheesh, really? You think that's ambiguous? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 06:40, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- What you are saying is exactly what we are not supposed to do (see Wikipedia:SYNTH). We stick with the facts. We do not read into them.... and if you go down the original research path...you really think Trump noticed someone over his shoulder with an "Islamophobia is not the answer" sign"???Patapsco913 (talk) 06:53, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- No. Putting it bluntly, I'm saying that you cherry-picked a factoid to support your bias and tried to insert it into the article. My "original research" consisted of reading RS (CNN and one you thoughtfully provided, i.e., Slate). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:14, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- What you are saying is exactly what we are not supposed to do (see Wikipedia:SYNTH). We stick with the facts. We do not read into them.... and if you go down the original research path...you really think Trump noticed someone over his shoulder with an "Islamophobia is not the answer" sign"???Patapsco913 (talk) 06:53, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- It's pretty obvious that the man was an anti-Trump protester trying to embarrass Trump because the KKK supported him. (Trump's father coincidentally was a member of the KKK.) But it's not up to editors to determine that, but to reliable sources. You need to provide a reliable source that says the protester was a KKK supporter before we can say he was. TFD (talk) 07:07, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- My insert says nothing about being a pro- or anti-Trump supporter. I did not cherry-pick anything. Space4Time3Continuum2x what do you disagree with my edit exactly? I quoted exactly what CNN was saying. What I said in my insertion was "In 2016, Donald Trump stared down a protester wearing a t-shirt saying "KKK endorses Trump" before the protester was removed from the rally." How is that cherry-picking? My assertion for the title of this sub-heading was based on all the reliable sources I cited none of which stated the protester was anti-Trump. Since CNN implied he was perhaps anti-Trump (which none of the other sources cited), I picked a neutral statement for the article. TFD - what you are saying is obvious is original research, nay? "pretty obvious" is not how Wikipedia works and you have been around a long time. I did not say he was a KKK supporter...or did you not read my edit? (oh , if his father was a member of the KKK, why do you not add it to his wikipedia page?) Anyhow, I put the most neutral statement out there possible and every one is reading their bias into it. What is not neutral about what I wrote? Patapsco913 (talk) 09:15, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- No original research says, "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources." Obviously we can discuss whether the man was or was not a Trump supporter before deciding whether to include the story. What we cannot do is mention whether or not he was in the article, if the source does not say he was. Since you don't know whether or not he was a Trump supporter, there is no significance what his Tshirt said. TFD (talk) 16:21, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- The sources you cited above refer to the guy as a protester. Since it was a pro-Trump rally they didn’t have to spell out that he was an anti-Trump protester. The ref seems cherry-picked to me: a 100-second teaser intended to entice viewers to visit the website (which, incidentally, does not use the term "stare down"). The description underneath it is too vague to be a reliable source for anything, no matter what you or I think the video clip shows or confirms. The other sources you presented focus on something else (also mentioned by CNN but less prominently): Trump seemingly endorsing violence against protesters at his rallies. It was a minor incident, one of many, just another protester ejected from a Trump rally. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:56, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- Do you know if the media ever followed up on the story to find out who the person was or what his reasons were for doing this? TFD (talk) 17:28, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- I didn’t even remember the incident, and it doesn’t seem to have been mentioned at all by any news outlets except briefly on the day it happened, including locally in Oklahoma City. The local NPR station's report has a photograph that shows what Trump was really doing near the protester: He was posing for pictures . Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:32, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Do you know if the media ever followed up on the story to find out who the person was or what his reasons were for doing this? TFD (talk) 17:28, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- My insert says nothing about being a pro- or anti-Trump supporter. I did not cherry-pick anything. Space4Time3Continuum2x what do you disagree with my edit exactly? I quoted exactly what CNN was saying. What I said in my insertion was "In 2016, Donald Trump stared down a protester wearing a t-shirt saying "KKK endorses Trump" before the protester was removed from the rally." How is that cherry-picking? My assertion for the title of this sub-heading was based on all the reliable sources I cited none of which stated the protester was anti-Trump. Since CNN implied he was perhaps anti-Trump (which none of the other sources cited), I picked a neutral statement for the article. TFD - what you are saying is obvious is original research, nay? "pretty obvious" is not how Wikipedia works and you have been around a long time. I did not say he was a KKK supporter...or did you not read my edit? (oh , if his father was a member of the KKK, why do you not add it to his wikipedia page?) Anyhow, I put the most neutral statement out there possible and every one is reading their bias into it. What is not neutral about what I wrote? Patapsco913 (talk) 09:15, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
This is a nothingburger. What really happened: someone stood up behind him on the stage. Trump walked over and looked at him for "a few moments" until police took him away. There is no indication that their eyes even met, or that he thought of the person as a KKK supporter. He apparently assumed it was just another protester - which it probably was, considering the star of David the guy was also wearing. When he returned to the podium he complained that the guy would have been removed sooner if it wasn't for "political correctness". "Political correctness" would have applied if the guy was a protester from the left, not a supporter from the fringe right. It's clear he never did realize what the guy's angle was. Here's all that happened: he interrupted his speech to look at someone who stood up on the stage, then walked back to the podium complaining that the police should have acted sooner but were restrained by "political correctness". Apparently a myth later developed that he "stared the person down" or in some way indicated disapproval of a KKK message. His actions do not support that. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:52, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
The four
I was reverted with summary "Appears to be very well sourced." I don't think any number of sources is sufficient for claims about what Trump had in his mind at a particular moment. wumbolo ^^^ 16:03, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think it is mind-reading to figure out who Trump was talking about. I question though mentioning that white nationalists supported his comments, without explaining its relevance. TFD (talk) 16:14, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- Perhaps this needs to be something else, but the sources do mention words by Duke as something significant ("Voting against Donald Trump at this point is really treason to your heritage"). My very best wishes (talk) 17:52, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- The section is called "racial views"; I did think a statement from a White Nationalist leader saying that "this is the kind of WHITE NATIONALISM we elected him for" was relevant. Open for discussion of course. Certainly his repeated attacks on these four women is relevant to the section - "Go back to where you came from is a longstanding racial insult, especially when applied to people who are not immigrants. And he has named all four of them, by name, there is no doubt who he was referring to. I read somewhere but can't find a source, that his tweet was initially inspired by a segment about the Squad (those four women) on Fox and Friends. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:11, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- Gertz tweet, Rolling Stone Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 04:48, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- From the 30s to the 60s, the Communist Party was heavily involved in the civil rights movement and conservatives argued that the movement was part of a Jewish Communist conspiracy to subvert the U.S. Therefore all civil rights leaders were Communist stooges. To me, the reference to Duke implies something about Trump's policies without actually saying it. TFD (talk) 19:33, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- We can include implications like that from sources, provided the sources themselves are making the implication rather than us ourselves. Whether it's WP:DUE or not is another question, but I don't think it would be hard to find sources explicitly stating what they think it means. That said, if we did, I think the best way to go about it would be to find a good source that goes into detail on what's being implied here, then use an in-line citation to make it clear who's seeing this connection and what they think it means. The solution to concerns of vague aspersions is that sort of specificity. --Aquillion (talk) 05:08, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- No, Wikipedia articles cannot imply anything. Anything conveyed must be explicit. Implications are implicit synthesis. (David Duke supports Trump, Duke is a white supremacist, therefore Trump is too.) And per neutrality, opinions must be attributed in text, and articles should not express opinions, either implicitly or explicitly. TFD (talk) 22:32, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- We can include implications like that from sources, provided the sources themselves are making the implication rather than us ourselves. Whether it's WP:DUE or not is another question, but I don't think it would be hard to find sources explicitly stating what they think it means. That said, if we did, I think the best way to go about it would be to find a good source that goes into detail on what's being implied here, then use an in-line citation to make it clear who's seeing this connection and what they think it means. The solution to concerns of vague aspersions is that sort of specificity. --Aquillion (talk) 05:08, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- The section is called "racial views"; I did think a statement from a White Nationalist leader saying that "this is the kind of WHITE NATIONALISM we elected him for" was relevant. Open for discussion of course. Certainly his repeated attacks on these four women is relevant to the section - "Go back to where you came from is a longstanding racial insult, especially when applied to people who are not immigrants. And he has named all four of them, by name, there is no doubt who he was referring to. I read somewhere but can't find a source, that his tweet was initially inspired by a segment about the Squad (those four women) on Fox and Friends. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:11, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- Perhaps this needs to be something else, but the sources do mention words by Duke as something significant ("Voting against Donald Trump at this point is really treason to your heritage"). My very best wishes (talk) 17:52, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Consensus #37 is being ignored
The article continues to exceed the template space limit and has been in that state for some time. The easy solution that would have permanently solved the problem was rejected, leaving #Current consensus #37 as the next best hope. But that consensus is being ignored.
37. Resolved: Content related to Trump's presidency should be limited to summary-level about things that are likely to have a lasting impact on his life and/or long-term presidential legacy. If something is borderline or debatable, the resolution does not apply.
Editors continue to edit the Presidency section of this article the way they always have. When they see some significant new development, they drop in a new "On [date], [event] happened." Witness the latest example here.
This chronology treatment is not the "summary-level" referred to in #37. To comply with #37, the Donald Trump#Hush payments section (the section affected by the example above) needs to be rewritten to give a more general overview of the topic that needs less frequent update. I have the writing skills but lack the required thorough knowledge of the topic area; but I know there are editors who have both.
The same applies to many of the subtopics in the Presidency section. If we can't get clear agreement on the principle and editor commitment to spend some time on the rewrites, I propose that we cancel consensus #37 as pointless, setting a bad precedent, and a bit embarrassing. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- In some cases wilfully ignored, but in many cases passively ignored. Despite assurances, the excessive length of the article has not been sufficiently addressed, although there has been some good progress. We really should add the {very long} tag at the top of the article, not merely to highlight the issue so that editors may seek to address it, but to give this a strong priority so that editors in the normal course of editing are reminded not to be excessive. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:11, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- I think the very long tag was up before not so long ago but taken down. Problems is, even the spinoffs are crazy long now. Imagine after another 5.5 years?--MONGO (talk) 07:16, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- I also propose we remove Presidency of Donald Trump, Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019) and Mueller Report from the list of articles that we prefer editors to contribute rather than the main Donald Trump article. They are still included in the Donald Trump series which we also direct people to, but shouldn't be a primary destination. We should then consider adding other articles to the list, especially to replace those subject areas. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:37, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
In some cases wilfully ignored, but in many cases passively ignored.
Ok then. If it's willfully or passively ignored by all editors, it needs to be canceled. I may been mistaken to assume that editors understood the intent of the proposal.Was this excessive? No, it was only two more sentences that followed the long-standing pattern in that section and others. No tag is going to address that. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:42, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- I think the very long tag was up before not so long ago but taken down. Problems is, even the spinoffs are crazy long now. Imagine after another 5.5 years?--MONGO (talk) 07:16, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Maybe the way to handle this for the moment is to remind any editor who's violating #37 (pr believed to be) and ask him or her to self-revert and discuss on the Talk page. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 03:46, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Hush payments
Donald Trump#Hush payments should be a single paragraph that directs readers to sub articles. While the matter was of great significance earlier in Trump's presidency, the sheer weight of his other actions and scandals has surely relegated its importance. This is certainly one of those areas that can be dramatically trimmed. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:06, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
@Mandruss and Scjessey: - I can do two paragraphs. But I may have missed some denial regarding McDougal that isn't present in this article at the moment.
In 2016, before Trump's presidential election, his attorney Michael Cohen paid hush money of $130,000 to adult film actress Stormy Daniels, as well as $150,000 to Playboy model Karen McDougal via American Media Inc. In 2018, Cohen pleaded guilty to breaking campaign finance laws with the above payments, stating that he had made them with the intention of influencing the presidential election, and at the direction of Trump. American Media Inc. also admitted payment to McDougal to influence the election, with the company's CEO David Pecker having offered to catch and kill stories that might embarass Trump. The hush payments were made to silence two allegations: that Daniels had an affair with a married Trump in 2006, and that McDougal had an affair with Trump from 2006 to 2007. A lawsuit resulted in Trump and Cohen agreeing in 2018 not to enforce the non-disclosure agreement against Daniels.
Trump denied having an affair with Daniels or McDougal. In April 2018, Trump said that he did not know anything about Cohen paying Daniels, why Cohen had made the payment, or where Cohen got the money. In May 2018, Trump's financial disclosure for 2017 revealed that he had reimbursed Cohen for payments related to Daniels. In July 2018, a lawyer for Cohen released a September 2016 tape recording of Cohen and Trump discussing a plan to pay McDougal. In August 2018, Trump said that he hadn't known about the payments when they were made. Court documents published in July 2019 showed that the FBI believed Trump was directly involved in Daniels' hush payment based on calls he had with Cohen in October 2016, starting a day after Trump's Access Hollywood tape was publicized.
starship.paint (talk) 13:12, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Starship.paint: I think that's a huge step forward, thank you. I think you should do that as a bold edit after adding appropriate cites, and then we can deal with any challenges as to specific parts. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:23, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed. It's good, and I have no objection to it being implemented immediately; however, I believe it can be shortened still further. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:45, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Awaiting the references...not sure why they cannot be added beforehand for evaluation.--MONGO (talk) 01:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- This is definitely better but I agree it can be shortened. The relevance of this to the article is that it constitutes a legal investigation with legal consequences, so this isn't the place to go into detail about Trump's sexuality. There can also be an improvement in encyclopaedic quality, so I offer the following with changes.
In October 2016, Trump's attorney Michael Cohen paid $130,000 to adult film actress Stormy Daniels, as well as $150,000 to Playboy model Karen McDougal via American Media Inc, in exchange for non-disclosure agreements regarding an affair with Daniels in 2006 and an affair with McDougal in 2006 to 2007. In 2018, Cohen pleaded guilty to breaking campaign finance laws with these payments, stating that he had made them with the intention of influencing the presidential election, and at the direction of Trump. American Media Inc also admitted paying McDougal to prevent the publication of stories that might embarrass Trump.
Although claiming he did not know about the payments, Trump's financial disclosure for 2017, released in May 2018, revealed that he had reimbursed Cohen for payments related to Daniels.In July 2018, Cohen released a September 2016 tape recording of Cohen and Trump discussing a plan to pay McDougal.Court documents published in July 2019 showed that the FBI believed Trump was directly involved in the payment to Daniels based on calls he had with Cohen in October 2016.
Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:48, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- Even better! ―Mandruss ☎ 04:01, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- We also don't need the release of a tape, since we've established Trump indirectly paid McDougal. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:05, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- That's good tight prose, sticking to the essential facts. Thanks! — JFG talk 09:23, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed. That's very good. You can join the two paragraphs together now. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:40, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- In fact, let me tighten just a tiny bit more:
In October 2016, Trump's attorney Michael Cohen paid $130,000 to adult film actress Stormy Daniels, as well as $150,000 to Playboy model Karen McDougal via American Media Inc, in exchange for non-disclosure agreements regarding affairs with Daniels in 2006, and McDougal in 2006 to 2007. In 2018, Cohen pleaded guilty to breaking campaign finance laws with these payments, stating that he had made them with the intention of influencing the presidential election, and at the direction of Trump. American Media Inc also admitted paying McDougal to prevent the publication of stories that might embarrass Trump. Although claiming he did not know about the payments, Trump's financial disclosure for 2017 revealed that he had reimbursed Cohen for payments related to Daniels. Court documents showed that the FBI believed Trump was directly involved in the payment to Daniels based on calls he had with Cohen in October 2016.
- --Scjessey (talk) 12:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- That's good tight prose, sticking to the essential facts. Thanks! — JFG talk 09:23, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- We also don't need the release of a tape, since we've established Trump indirectly paid McDougal. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:05, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
In October 2016, Trump's attorney Michael Cohen paid $130,000 to adult film actress Stormy Daniels, as well as $150,000 to Playboy model Karen McDougal via American Media Inc, in exchange for non-disclosure agreements regarding allegations of Trump's affairs with Daniels in 2006, and McDougal in 2006 to 2007. Cohen pleaded guilty in 2018 to breaking campaign finance laws with these payments, stating that he had made them with the intention of influencing the presidential election, and at the direction of Trump. American Media Inc also admitted paying McDougal to prevent the publication of stories that might damage Trump's electoral chances. Although Trump denied the affairs and claimed he did not know about Cohen's payment to Daniels, his financial disclosure for 2017 revealed that he had reimbursed Cohen for such a payment. Court documents showed that the FBI believed Trump was directly involved in the payment to Daniels based on calls he had with Cohen in October 2016.
Some wording changes. Re-add Trump's denial of affairs... (has the right to denial in his own BLP.) There should also be mention that Cohen's payments were before election day? That's why they were campaign finance violations, because they were made before election day. starship.paint (talk) 13:34, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- I'd tighten the prose a bit more, and add that Cohen recorded the calls:
In October 2016, Trump's attorney Michael Cohen paid $130,000 to adult film actress Stormy Daniels, as well as $150,000 to Playboy model Karen McDougal via American Media Inc (AMI), in exchange for non-disclosure agreements regarding their alleged affairs with Trump in 2006–2007. Cohen pleaded guilty in 2018 to breaking campaign finance laws, stating that he made the payments at the direction of Trump in order to influence the presidential election. AMI also admitted paying McDougal to prevent the publication of stories that might damage Trump's electoral chances. Although Trump denied the affairs and claimed he was not aware of Cohen's payment to Daniels, he reimbursed Cohen in 2017, according to mandatory financial disclosures. Court documents showed that the FBI believed Trump was directly involved in the payment to Daniels, based on calls recorded by Cohen in October 2016.
- But can't we go edit the article directly now? — JFG talk 13:54, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- FYI, "hush payments" strikes me as a very informal term for a section header. I think something less slang-y would be more appropriate, like "confidentiality agreements" or something of that nature. Cosmic Sans (talk) 14:06, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
More tighterer!
In October 2016, Trump's attorney Michael Cohen paid $130,000 to adult film actress Stormy Daniels, as well as $150,000 to Playboy model Karen McDougal via American Media Inc (AMI), in exchange for non-disclosure agreements regarding alleged affairs with Trump in 2006–2007. Cohen pleaded guilty in 2018 to breaking campaign finance laws, stating that he made the payments at the direction of Trump in order to influence the presidential election. AMI admitted paying McDougal to prevent the publication of stories that might damage Trump's electoral chances. Trump denied the affairs and claimed he was not aware of Cohen's payment to Daniels, but reimbursed Cohen in 2017. Court documents showed the FBI believed Trump was directly involved in the payment to Daniels, based on calls recorded by Cohen in October 2016.
-- Scjessey (talk) 15:10, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
I inserted [29] JFG's version with the last sentence changed (because I haven't seen a source that said based on calls recorded by Cohen in October 2016
. Anyone is free to add a source and change the wording accordingly. I also added the second last sentence. I didn't see Scjessey's version when I made the edit. starship.paint (talk) 15:27, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- Now instituted the trim by Scjessey of the "reimbursed" sentence. [30] For documentation's sake, here it is. I'm not opposed to
based on calls recorded by Cohen in October 2016
if a source can be cited for it. Note that the second last sentence is ‘new’. I missed such content earlier and thought it is significant when I just noticed it. starship.paint (talk) 15:40, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
In October 2016, Trump's attorney Michael Cohen paid $130,000 to adult film actress Stormy Daniels, as well as $150,000 to Playboy model Karen McDougal via American Media Inc (AMI), in exchange for non-disclosure agreements regarding their alleged affairs with Trump in 2006–2007. Cohen pleaded guilty in 2018 to breaking campaign finance laws, stating that he made the payments at the direction of Trump in order to influence the presidential election. AMI also admitted paying McDougal to prevent the publication of stories that might damage Trump's electoral chances. Trump denied the affairs, and claimed he was not aware of Cohen's payment to Daniels, but reimbursed Cohen in 2017. Federal prosecutors asserted that Trump had been involved in discussions on hush payments as early as 2014. Court documents showed that the FBI believed Trump was directly involved in the payment to Daniels, based on calls he had with Cohen in October 2016.
- There's no such thing as "non-disclosure payments" and, even if there were, it wouldn't apply to McDougal whose story was bought by the National Enquirer ostensibly for publication and then buried. The title should be something like Silencing accusers. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 05:02, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- The section isn't about the payments. It's about the legality of the payments. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:29, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Michael Cohen paid ... $150,000 to Playboy model Karen McDougal via American Media Inc (AMI), in exchange for non-disclosure agreements
. Where is the source for that statement? The first ref (BBC) doesn't mention McDougal. Second ref (WSJ) is paywalled so I can only read the first paragraph and the first sentence and a half of the second paragraph. According to what I can read there, she sold her story to AMI for publication. And the cite 123IP removed (Politico) per overciting, said that, according to WSJ, she sold the exclusive rights to her story to AMI. I doubt that she would have signed an NDA, I don't know for sure but that doesn't matter since you need a ref to say that she did. AMI also admitted buying the story for 150 thou, and also that theymade the payment to "influence the election"
which is a violation of campaign finance law (NY Times). Cohen may have been the go-between between the parties, but according to the sources he had no hand in the payment or the contract between McDougal and AMI, and no source suggested that Pecker or AMI were reimbursed by Cohen or anyone else. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)- @Space4Time3Continuum2x: [33] here's one source.
August 2016: Karen McDougal payment Mr. Cohen coordinated with the chief executive of American Media Inc
starship.paint (talk) 14:10, 24 July 2019 (UTC) - Eh, so here's the stuff with Cohen and AMI. Page 12/22 and 13/22 in the Cohen Information document (2nd document). [34]
- 29. In June 2016: McDougal's attorney Davidson contacts AMI, who tells Cohen. Cohen promises AMI that he would reimburse them. AMI negotiates to purchase McDougal's story.
- 30. In August 2016: AMI purchases McDougal's story for $150,000.
- 31. In August/September 2016, Cohen signs a deal with AMI to buy AMI's story for $125,000, and creates a shell company to do so.
- 32. In October 2016, with Cohen yet to pay the money, AMI tells Cohen the deal is off.
- Here's a detailed mainstream source. [35] starship.paint (talk) 14:23, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Space4Time3Continuum2x: [33] here's one source.
- Continuing with the OR: On page 14/22 (item 31) it says that
in or about early October 2016, after the agreement was signed but before COHEN had paid the $125,000, Chairman-1
[Pecker?]contacted COHEN and told him, in substance the deal was off and that COHEN should tear up the assignment agreement. COHEN did not tear up the agreement, which was later found during a judicially authorized search of his office.
No idea what that means (AMI agreeing to buy story for $150k, Cohen agreeing to reimburse $125k, Pecker paying $150k without expecting reimbursement), but we're not supposed to draw our own conclusions from OR. WSJ article is paywalled, so I can’t read it. The sentence you cited just says that Cohen "coordinated," and AP (via Chicago Tribune) that Cohen and Trump "arranged" the payment. My edit was fairly bland—who paid how much to whom, not why. Haven’t gotten around to the third paragraph. This is still a developing story as the judge in Cohen’s case ordered the unredacted release of investigative material a few days ago. The material is expected to be released tomorrow, according to the NYT, so we'll probably get some RS reporting on it in the next few days. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:47, 24 July 2019 (UTC)- Remember, let's keep this in the perspective of simply the main legal details. Anything further should be moved to the dedicated article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- Our perspective should be what RS say, and that's not the current version. Unfortunately, my hands are currently tied by 1RR. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 03:50, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- inserted this RS [36] it’s what Cohen pled guilty to starship.paint (talk) 09:52, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- Remember, let's keep this in the perspective of simply the main legal details. Anything further should be moved to the dedicated article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- Continuing with the OR: On page 14/22 (item 31) it says that
- The current version is better than the one we had before but still puts too much emphasis on Cohen in McDougal's case. NYT_2/18/18:
In early 2016, … In August of that year, Mr. Cohen learned details of a deal that American Media had struck with a former Playboy model, Karen McDougal, that prevented her from going public about an alleged affair with Mr. Trump. Mr. Cohen was not representing anyone in the confidential agreement, but he was apprised of it by Ms. McDougal’s lawyer, and earlier had been made aware of her attempt to tell her story by the media company, according to interviews and an email reviewed by The New York Times.
McDougal, or rather her lawyer Keith M. Davidson who was in cahoots with Pecker, negotiated with AMI and then signed a contract with them. Pecker kept Cohen apprised and later apparently agreed to sell him the "kompromat" he held on Trump but then backed out of the deal (Cohen kept the agreement that had already been drawn up). Sources: NYT_4/21/18, NYT 4/18/18, Agreement_AMI_McD_4/18/18 (one of the exhibits is the original contract between AMI and McDougal), Vox_7/25/18, CNBC_7/17/19, Vox_7/18/19, Politico_7/17/19. CNBC:He personally paid Daniels $130,000 on the eve of the 2016 presidential election in exchange for her agreement to keep quiet about her alleged tryst with Trump a decade earlier, on the heels of his wife Melania giving birth to their son. Cohen also arranged for the publisher of the supermarket tabloid The National Enquirer to pay McDougal $150,000 in the months leading up to the election. McDougal claims she had an affair with Trump.
Waiting to see if there are further developments. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:00, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Space4Time3Continuum2x: - I disagree that there is too much on Cohen regarding McDougal, because Cohen is literally the link to Trump's role in the illegal act. The biggest reason why McDougal's payment is relevant to Trump's article is because ______ said that they did it at the direction of Trump, and that implicates Trump in a crime. In this case, ______ is Cohen. If AMI independently paid hush money to McDougal while never ever informing Trump or his associates, I don't think that would be a campaign finance violation. starship.paint (talk) 16:36, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think we disagree on this. IMO the paragraph doesn't make Trump's involvement clear enough. I just moved Trump's denial, reimbursement & mention of the court documents up to the sentence about Stormy Daniels in this edit to keep the info about that hush money payment together (and then self-reverted). It would require adding a sentence with Trump's denial about McDougal, but I think the two changes would clarify the matter(s). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 06:46, 27 July 2019 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:01, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Title of subsection
- The title is nondescriptive and needs to be changed to something more to the point like hush money payments. NDAs are neither illegal nor controversial in the majority of cases. The sources call the payments hush money payments, made to benefit a candidate in a presidential race and allegedly at his urging or at least with his knowledge. They should also have been reported to the FEC as a campaign loan (Stormy) or contribution (McDougal) which would have been somewhat counterproductive, hush-wise (and exceeding the limit for contributions). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:07, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- I think that was a little too quick to reach a consensus. I think that "hush payments" is not an appropriately neutral term for a BLP. (And because I know someone will bring it up - just because an RS says it, doesn't mean that it should be the section title as far as BLPs are concerned.) Cosmic Sans (talk) 20:45, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- What is your suggestion then? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:06, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed with Cosmic Sans, that was way too fast to assume consensus when changing the title of a controversy about one of the most famous BLP's. Galestar (talk) 21:47, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- My objection is that "Hush money payments" is not NPOV and is far too informal for a section header. Galestar (talk) 21:47, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- I think that non-disclosure payments is fine. Before anyone jumps in with a WP:BUTITSTRUE, we can leave that for the actual section test which has citations and full information. Cosmic Sans (talk) 01:05, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- I think that was a little too quick to reach a consensus. I think that "hush payments" is not an appropriately neutral term for a BLP. (And because I know someone will bring it up - just because an RS says it, doesn't mean that it should be the section title as far as BLPs are concerned.) Cosmic Sans (talk) 20:45, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
@Galestar and Cosmic Sans: - addressing you together. The status quo
isn't Non-disclosure payments. That header was only edited in [37] on 22 July 2019, that's 4 days ago, without any discussion. The real status quo is a header of Hush payments, which was in the article for over 7 months, see 21 December 2018 it was there already. [38] If you want, I can take us back to Hush payments while we discuss. starship.paint (talk) 01:41, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- User:Starship.paint Yes thanks, please self-revert back to "Hush payments" as the prior long-standing content for a day or two more discussion. We may also discuss the prior long-standing content titles -- now it's back to small size like it was when it was just a part of "Legal affairs" or "Other legal affairs" (no pun intended), maybe it no longer needs a separate section and just put it the para back into that ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:35, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- I have just put it back Hush payments. But I still think it deserves its own section, given the other places on-wiki where we obviously cover it in more detail, it's obviously noteworthy starship.paint (talk) 02:47, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- I appreciate the revert until we can discuss. Perhaps I misunderstand your argument but that reason for it getting its own section sounds like "other stuff exists". Galestar (talk) 04:42, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- I have just put it back Hush payments. But I still think it deserves its own section, given the other places on-wiki where we obviously cover it in more detail, it's obviously noteworthy starship.paint (talk) 02:47, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Ah okay I misunderstood what the status-quo was. Galestar (talk) 04:42, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Cosmic Sans, Galestar: Please explain why you think "hush money" is non-neutral? Quoting WP: There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia. The term is informal, according to Merriam-Webster, and defined as
money paid to someone to prevent them from disclosing embarrassing or discreditable information
(and their example for using it in a sentence is He's accused of paying her hush money to keep their affair secret :). Would you prefer the more formal "bribe payments" (Merriam-Webster:something that serves to induce or influence
, example: offered the kid a bribe to finish his homework)? In English, you cannot pay "non-disclosure" (or "hush", for that matter), but you can pay a "bribe" or "hush money." It was legal for the women to accept the payments; the payments were illegal for Cohen/AMI only because they were done to benefit candidate Trump and weren’t declared to the FEC (and in AMI’s case, the amount was way over the limit for contributions). Pecker struck a deal and Cohen went to jail, so I don’t see where NPOV comes in. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 06:14, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Calling them "hush payments" just feeds into the salacious nature of the drama, which we most certainly aim to avoid. We are here to present the facts dispassionately and we should not imply that something is controversial. "Non-disclosure agreements" would be a far better section heading. It is important to note that we are not presenting the issue through the act of a person paying somebody not to say something. As Space4Time3Continuum2x rightly states, this is not controversial. The notability is entirely because of the legal investigations, and not on whether the payments are wrong or right. The legal investigations sections are not supposed to be a list of controversies. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:29, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- No, you either misunderstood or my explanation wasn’t clear enough. NDAs per se are not controversial; my work contract, for example, includes one, and I don’t get paid additional money for NOT passing on confidential company information to the competition, I’d get fired and fined and/or sued if I did. The hush money payments are also not controversial but for a different reason: we know for a fact that the payments were made, and why they were made. We also mention that one of the parties involved says that the reimbursement wasn’t a reimbursement. Whatever the
salacious nature of the drama
was, calling it "alleged affairs" seems NPOV to me. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:27, 27 July 2019 (UTC)- Me too. 2600:1702:2340:9470:ECEE:136B:4E62:62DB (talk) 18:14, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- The affairs aren't alleged, but this isn't a section about affairs. This is a section about the payments that were part of the non-disclosure agreement. Non-disclosure agreements aren't signed for nothing, whether that's payment directly or payment as part of ongoing employment. "Hush money" or "hush payments" are not neutral descriptions. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:05, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- No, you either misunderstood or my explanation wasn’t clear enough. NDAs per se are not controversial; my work contract, for example, includes one, and I don’t get paid additional money for NOT passing on confidential company information to the competition, I’d get fired and fined and/or sued if I did. The hush money payments are also not controversial but for a different reason: we know for a fact that the payments were made, and why they were made. We also mention that one of the parties involved says that the reimbursement wasn’t a reimbursement. Whatever the
- new suggestion: Campaign finance violations. That's the crime. starship.paint (talk) 03:13, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- This is the closest so far to the optimal title. I think "violations" might be coming to a conclusion that hasn't been legally established yet, but certainly the title should be something to do with campaign finance. I think something like campaign finance payments would be the best to describe the investigation, and could also include any other payments from the campaign funds that are under investigation. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:26, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Onetwothreeip: - Cohen pleaded guilty to campaign finance violations. Also, finance plus payment seems like an overlap starship.paint (talk) 03:29, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- That's a supported conclusion for Michael Cohen but not for Trump. Maybe misuse of campaign funds. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:45, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- This article has misuse of euphemisms. "Violations" is the correct word. SPECIFICO talk 03:56, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- The name of the charge is a legal technicality. In our search for accuracy, we should not lose the essence of the material—i.e. hush money payments. I say bank that, Stop Thinking, and move on. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:01, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- It's not about whether he did or didn't do something, it's just a conclusion and that shouldn't be in the title. "Hush money" has already been dealt with, as far too informal and salacious. The "essence" of the material isn't the payments, it's the investigation into the legality of the payments. In the context of this particular section, we don't actually care about the payments themselves, beyond basic context. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:34, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- That's a supported conclusion for Michael Cohen but not for Trump. Maybe misuse of campaign funds. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:45, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Onetwothreeip: - Cohen pleaded guilty to campaign finance violations. Also, finance plus payment seems like an overlap starship.paint (talk) 03:29, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
What Mandruss said: Move on, p l e a s e. NDAs are normally signed before to keep you from doing the fact; they're not signed after to keep you from talking about having done the fact. (BTW, and not that it matters for our editing, starship.paint provided the link to the contracts between AMI and McDougal which are available online to be read by the general public; they do not contain "non-disclosure agreement" or "NDA.") has already been dealt with
– uh, no. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 04:49, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- The paragraph isn't about whether or not it was unusual to sign them. Of course the matter of "hush payment" has been dealt with, I'm very sure my last response was not the first time the informality of the phrase was brought up here. I think this is all redundant though, since this doesn't actually need a title at all. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:57, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Merriam-Webster doesn't say hush money is slang or colloquial, which pretty much kills the "too informal" argument. I don't know about "salacious", since Merriam-Webster doesn't make moral judgments about words. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:11, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Merriam-Webster also doesn't say dad is informal, even though it's an informal form of "father". I think if we are to use such a dictionary, we should use what they say rather than what they don't. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:59, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
"Hush money payments" is not slang. It is in everyday use, accurate, and well supported by reliable sources. I really don't know why this is still being discussed. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:37, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- I didn't say it's slang, I said it's informal, along with the issues myself and others have raised. Onetwothreeip (talk) 13:42, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- It's not informal either. The "issues" you and others have raised aren't issues at all. "Hush money payments" is neutral, accurate and well-sourced. There's absolutely no reason not to use the term because it passes every policy and guideline Wikipedia has. If you are concerned about the way it sounds, that's just too bad. Continued opposition just comes off as disruptive, frankly. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:54, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- The informality of the term is the issue, and has been raised. It's not a neutral term, as it implies that something bad has happened. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:38, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- It's not informal either. The "issues" you and others have raised aren't issues at all. "Hush money payments" is neutral, accurate and well-sourced. There's absolutely no reason not to use the term because it passes every policy and guideline Wikipedia has. If you are concerned about the way it sounds, that's just too bad. Continued opposition just comes off as disruptive, frankly. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:54, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- "Hush money" is not a neutral term. It carries with it certain connotations that we're all aware of and would be pointless to deny. (Aren't the negative connotations the exact reason why people are fighting to keep it in? Anyway.) It doesn't matter that a RS says it. In a BLP, especially in one so politically contentious as this, we should ensure that when Wikipedia is speaking, it must be as neutral as possible. This doesn't mean that the actual meat of the article needs to be changed. Cosmic Sans (talk) 12:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- What connotations am I aware of and denying? That hush money is hush money and not salary or payment for the sale of an item or work performed ? What else do you call a bribe but a bribe (that's the formal term)? Quoting Scjessey, "hush money payments" is neutral, accurate and well-sourced. The women said they had affairs with Trump, they were paid hush money as confirmed by Cohen, AMI, and the documents presented to the courts, Trump denied. Those are the facts, not whether or not Trump had an affair. Legal issue, nondisclosure agreement, nondisclosure payment, campaign finance payments, that's legalese to fudge the issue in the title, i.e., sanitize it. Campaign finance violations - I can think of several but this section deals with the hush money payments. WP:PUBLICFIGURE:
BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article. ... Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. It is denied, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should state only that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that the affair actually occurred.
The title needs to reflect the content of the section, not deflect from it. Deflecting is non-neutral and biased. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:55, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- What connotations am I aware of and denying? That hush money is hush money and not salary or payment for the sale of an item or work performed ? What else do you call a bribe but a bribe (that's the formal term)? Quoting Scjessey, "hush money payments" is neutral, accurate and well-sourced. The women said they had affairs with Trump, they were paid hush money as confirmed by Cohen, AMI, and the documents presented to the courts, Trump denied. Those are the facts, not whether or not Trump had an affair. Legal issue, nondisclosure agreement, nondisclosure payment, campaign finance payments, that's legalese to fudge the issue in the title, i.e., sanitize it. Campaign finance violations - I can think of several but this section deals with the hush money payments. WP:PUBLICFIGURE:
123ip, you've been editing on WP regularly (MONGO, I think this is what Mandruss meant by "regular editors," nothing to do with "page ownership") for longer than I have, so consider the following my informed personal interpretation of WP guidelines.
- In a complex article like this where content has been and is being discussed at length, it's inconsiderate (I'm being polite here) to remove subsection titles, turn the subsections into single paragraphs, and "move[] [them] to top of section" (which is the only change your edit summary mentioned, a no-no),
- then change the title "Hush payments" to "Legal issues" while it's being discussed on the Talk page and without mentioning the change in the summary,
- and then move the renamed section + "Russian interference" + "Protests" from "Presidency" to "2016 campaign" with a summary saying "moved legal issues, moved protests."
- I may have been wrong about the citations (why are some of them highlighted?), had to do a lot of scrolling just to get an overview of the edits.
- If you want to go bold, do it one item at a time and with a proper summary so other editors can see what you have done and why, if for nothing else than common courtesy.
- Do not go bold on items under discussion, even if—in your opinion—they are inappropriate or redundant. Trump is a very public figure, so well-sourced, appropriate, and DUE are very low bars to clear (we did it by saying "alleged affairs" and "he denied"). The editors of this article have to live with a lot of what they consider to be crap, as this Talk page and its 102 archives show ample evidence of. If you can't do that, you should consider not editing this and possibly other articles on current US politics.
We are here to present the facts dispassionately and we should not imply that something is controversial
- no, we're not, wesimply document what [the reliable published sources] say
. We do not editorialize, we do not imply, but we also do not sanitize or whitewash."Hush money" has already been dealt with, as far too informal and salacious.
5 editors supported the title "Hush money payments" because RS, 3 objected on the basis that it is too informal and/or not appropriately neutral. Does not sound like "case closed" to me (well, maybe if you're William Barr). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:55, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
New approach
It's just one paragraph anyway, does it really need a title? We can just put this paragraph into the main top-level part of the investigations section and let the paragraph speak for itself. We have much greater detail over this at the dedicated articles. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:46, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose, since readers generally don't read top-down but rather look for a particular topic of immediate interest. It will be harder to find without a heading. And we have plenty of one-paragraph sections. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:14, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- We don't need single-paragraph sections on an article like this. Readers already cannot see these subsections on the contents, and this is not at all the appropriate article for readers who want to know specifically about this subject. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:38, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- I've made a very similar argument repeatedly, including recently when I proposed transcluding the Presidency section from the lead of the Presidency article. I argued that the Presidency article should be viewed as the primary go-to for information about his presidency, that it should be viewed as a mere extension of this article for space reasons, that the information about his presidency in this article can and should be kept at a very high overview level. I was informed that I was wrong and that many readers won't go to the Presidency article despite the prominent hatnote. I was also informed that we can't do that because other presidents' BLPs don't do that.
We don't need single-paragraph sections on an article like this.
And yet we have 12 of them, if my tired old eyes can be trusted.I consider this edit an overbold and I'll ask you to self-revert it. This is not resolved just because you say it's resolved. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:10, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- I've made a very similar argument repeatedly, including recently when I proposed transcluding the Presidency section from the lead of the Presidency article. I argued that the Presidency article should be viewed as the primary go-to for information about his presidency, that it should be viewed as a mere extension of this article for space reasons, that the information about his presidency in this article can and should be kept at a very high overview level. I was informed that I was wrong and that many readers won't go to the Presidency article despite the prominent hatnote. I was also informed that we can't do that because other presidents' BLPs don't do that.
- We don't need single-paragraph sections on an article like this. Readers already cannot see these subsections on the contents, and this is not at all the appropriate article for readers who want to know specifically about this subject. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:38, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- You do not new approach-sidestep ongoing discussions that do not appear to be going your way. Please, self-revert. (I would have done it myself but I'm not sure if my edit reverting the hyphenating of real estate counts towards 1RR.) As for
Readers already cannot see these subsections on the contents
, I've been asking myself for a while why "Legal investigations" is a subsection to the "Presidency" section because Russian interference, hush money payments, Manafort, Gates, Papadopoulus all predate the presidency (also part of the Flynn and Stone stuff) and belong in the 2016 campaign section under their own headings. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:46, 28 July 2019 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:56, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- I don't know why you think the other discussion isn't "going my way". The only reason that the paragraph still had its own heading was simply because it wasn't yet removed when we took the steps to tighten what was several paragraphs into one, and it should have been done at the time. As for the legal affairs of "associates", much of what is described is not directly relevant to Trump. That content should be written on this article only as it relates to Trump, and then in the most summary way possible, where further elaboration can occur on other articles as appropriate. I agree that the legal investigations shouldn't be entirely a subsection of the presidency section, and I will promptly resolve this. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:16, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Onetwothreeip: You have been asked politely by two regular editors to self-revert. I'd suggest you self-revert. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:19, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- What is a "regular editor"? That sounds like a page ownership issue to me.--MONGO (talk) 03:59, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- I agree they have been polite and I respect their editing and their conduct on the talk page. I'm not convinced that restoring headings for single paragraphs is a good idea, but I am willing to hear why editors think so. You have said
this is not resolved just because you say it's resolved
about me. What are you saying that I have said is resolved exactly? Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:33, 28 July 2019 (UTC)- @Onetwothreeip: No, it doesn't work that way. You don't get to make an overbold edit around an issue under discussion and then treat it as status quo ante. You self-revert and then we talk about it. And you make an effort to avoid future overbolds of that nature. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:40, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Can you show me a guideline that says an editor should revert their own edits when asked to do so? I don't believe the edits I have made are "overbold", but simply minor technical edits moving things around. I wouldn't take it personally if someone objected to an edit I've made, or even if they revert it.
- Personally I didn't mind what heading was used for the paragraph regarding the non-disclosure agreements, except that using "hush" was inappropriate. This discussion seemed quite redundant though, since it doesn't really need a heading anyway, at least when it was in the section about investigations. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:51, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Onetwothreeip: No, it doesn't work that way. You don't get to make an overbold edit around an issue under discussion and then treat it as status quo ante. You self-revert and then we talk about it. And you make an effort to avoid future overbolds of that nature. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:40, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Legal issues? Please, self-revert to status before this and wait for conclusion of discussion. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced that reverting as you describe would be a good to the article. Can you tell me why you think so? Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:42, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- I don't need to. This is process, not content. I've had my fill for the time being and I'm done here. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:47, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- I do wish to be collaborative here. On what basis of process do you think I should revert my edit then? Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:53, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- I don't need to. This is process, not content. I've had my fill for the time being and I'm done here. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:47, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced that reverting as you describe would be a good to the article. Can you tell me why you think so? Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:42, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Onetwothreeip: You have been asked politely by two regular editors to self-revert. I'd suggest you self-revert. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:19, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- I don't know why you think the other discussion isn't "going my way". The only reason that the paragraph still had its own heading was simply because it wasn't yet removed when we took the steps to tighten what was several paragraphs into one, and it should have been done at the time. As for the legal affairs of "associates", much of what is described is not directly relevant to Trump. That content should be written on this article only as it relates to Trump, and then in the most summary way possible, where further elaboration can occur on other articles as appropriate. I agree that the legal investigations shouldn't be entirely a subsection of the presidency section, and I will promptly resolve this. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:16, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Mandruss—you can't demand that someone revert their edit and at the same time be unwilling to engage in dialogue. Bus stop (talk) 13:41, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Absurd. "Hush money payments" is neutral, accurate and well sourced. Mandruss does not need to engage in additional, wasteful dialogue when no cogent argument against use of this term has been made. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:58, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Nonsense. Collaborative editing calls for dialogue. Bus stop (talk) 14:27, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Simply saying "no" over and over again without giving a legitimate, policy-based reason is not "collaborative" editing. It is disruption. We can't collaborate with a brick wall, so after several attempts to do so I'm not surprised Mandruss gave up. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:18, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- I think Onetwothreeip has provided this article with better trimming of the fat than anyone else has offered in some time. While I have not examined all the edits, culling here is badly needed.--MONGO (talk) 03:59, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
using "hush" was inappropriate. This discussion seemed quite redundant
, but I will give a hearing to your protests while my decision stands.Can you tell me why you think so?
Good dialoguing with you. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 04:08, 29 July 2019 (UTC)- Space4Time3Continuum2x You've misunderstood what I'm saying was redundant. There has been a disagreement on what to name a heading, but I was saying that I think that disagreement was redundant because we didn't need a heading for it anyway. Not because discussion had ended, was resolved, or anything like this.
- I just reverted your second edit. Kindly revert your first one and then we can discuss. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 04:43, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Scjessey There have been clear reasons based on policy that have been presented. You're entitled to disagree but please don't say that the have not been properly justified. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:37, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Space4Time3Continuum2x You've misunderstood what I'm saying was redundant. There has been a disagreement on what to name a heading, but I was saying that I think that disagreement was redundant because we didn't need a heading for it anyway. Not because discussion had ended, was resolved, or anything like this.
- Nonsense. Collaborative editing calls for dialogue. Bus stop (talk) 14:27, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Absurd. "Hush money payments" is neutral, accurate and well sourced. Mandruss does not need to engage in additional, wasteful dialogue when no cogent argument against use of this term has been made. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:58, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Mandruss—you can't demand that someone revert their edit and at the same time be unwilling to engage in dialogue. Bus stop (talk) 13:41, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Revert needed
Is it possible to roll back these two massive edits from 5:02 and 8:27, the second one done after the editor had been asked to self-revert the first one and wait for the conclusion of two ongoing discussions on long-standing content (one, two)? I believe the editor, after having decided what is good and appropriate for the article, is now, in the interest of being "collaborative," willing to hear why
other editors disagree while the fait accompli stands. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:19, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- I agree these edits were made unilaterally, without discussion, and do not improve the page. However, instead of asking someone to self-revert (who obviously does not agree with you and M.), you should either revert to the previous (consensus) version yourself or make a compromise version. My very best wishes (talk) 15:17, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Have you looked at how many sections are involved? It would take several edits to reverse everything. What about 1RR? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:19, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- In this particular situation I would advice you not to make a revert, but rather focus on fixing anything specific you think needs to be fixed. You can do it by utilizing texts of the current or previous versions. Yes, editing such high profile pages is difficult. I prefer not to. My very best wishes (talk) 20:42, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Have you looked at how many sections are involved? It would take several edits to reverse everything. What about 1RR? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:19, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- I don't see an issue with those edits: they only moved some text around. — JFG talk 20:09, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Take a closer look. The editor also renamed sections (including the one being discussed, "Hush money," which is now "Legal affairs" in the "2016 campaign" section), removed references, AFAICT), all of it under the summaries "Moved single-paragraph subsections to top of section " and "Moved campaign legal issues to campaign section, moves protests section to presidency section." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 03:53, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- There's only one section I can recall renaming. I don't think that has to be its permanent name though. What references are you talking about that I removed? Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:42, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Take a closer look. The editor also renamed sections (including the one being discussed, "Hush money," which is now "Legal affairs" in the "2016 campaign" section), removed references, AFAICT), all of it under the summaries "Moved single-paragraph subsections to top of section " and "Moved campaign legal issues to campaign section, moves protests section to presidency section." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 03:53, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
I reverted. Rollback is for vandalism, so I changed the section header. Main reason for reverting is that the “See also” for this paragraph on hush payments can be mistaken to apply to the next paragraph with content on Nadler. starship.paint (talk) 06:49, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- That issue can easily be solved by moving the "see also" tags to the top of the subsection. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Through a glass darkly
WP:NOTFORUM. We sprinkle a bit of humor on this page, a Good Thing imo, but we don't dedicate threads to it. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:39, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
|
---|
Further to previous discussions, Trump has said that he prefers American wine to French wine, even though he doesn't drink; he just likes the way it looks.[39] Is there a word for someone who consumes alcohol by the eye? And is this a solution to the long-running mystery of Trump's alcohol consumption?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:52, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
|
Post-Presidency
Newspapers occasionally speculate on what Donald Trump will do at the end of and after his presidency, but are there any hard facts that could be put together here, beyond his original statement that he would take back control of his business after eight years?
For instance, he has mentioned the possibility of pardoning himself. Have any experts on American law written about the legality of pardoning himself and/or his children? Would it extend to offences at the state rather than federal level?
I have also seen talk about the possibility of his going abroad to avoid prosecution. Obviously there will be no plans for that in the public domain, but has anything been published about Trump properties in likely locations, such as Moscow or St Petersburg?
Another issue is the White House records. Recent presidents have carted their papers and tapes off to Presidential Libraries rather than shred them on-site. Is there any public plan to build a Trump Library? NRPanikker (talk) 13:00, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- There's no way to include speculation like that in the article. Cosmic Sans (talk) 13:16, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 July 2019
In the 2018-2019 government shutdown section, in this sentence: "On January 25, 2019, Congress passed and Trump signed a 3-week appropriation bill to fund the government while negotiations on border security funding took place. This ended the 31-day shutdown, the longest such shutdown in U.S. history." Where it says "this ended the 31-day shutdown," it was actually 35 days. Please change 31 to 35, as that is the correct amount of days.
Golfpecks256 (talk) 13:25, 29 July 2019 (UTC) Golfpecks256 (talk) 13:25, 29 July 2019 (UTC)