Talk:Donald Trump: Difference between revisions

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Pstein92.

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): LittleRobbinBird (article contribs).

Open RfCs and surveys

• #Proposing a change to the first sentence
• #RfC: Sexual misconduct allegations in the lead

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 .

01. Use the 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)

02. Show birthplace as "Queens, New York City, U.S." in the infobox. (Nov 2016, Oct 2018, Feb 2021) "New York City" de-linked. (September 2020)

03. Omit reference to county-level election statistics. (Dec 2016)

04. Superseded by #15

Lead phrasing of Trump "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 (Nov 2016, Dec 2016) (Superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)

05. Use Trump's annual net worth evaluation and matching ranking, from the Forbes list of billionaires, not from monthly or "live" estimates. (Oct 2016) In the lead section, just write: Forbes estimates his net worth to be [$x.x] billion. (July 2018, July 2018) Removed from the lead per #47.

06. Do not include allegations of sexual misconduct in the lead section. (June 2016, Feb 2018)

07. Superseded by #35

Include "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 (Sep 2016, February 2017, wording shortened per April 2017, upheld with July 2018) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019)

08. Mention that Trump is the first president elected "without prior military or government service". (Dec 2016)

09. 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. Canceled

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) Canceled: Barron's BLP has existed since June 2019. (June 2024)

11. Superseded by #17

The lead sentence is "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman, television personality, politician, and the 45th President of the United States." (Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017) (superseded by #17 since 2 April 2017)

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)

15. Superseded by lead rewrite

Supersedes #4. There is no consensus to change the formulation of the paragraph which summarizes election results in the lead (starting with "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)

16. Superseded by lead rewrite

Do not mention Russian influence on the presidential election in the lead section. (RfC March 2017) (Superseded by lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017)

17. Superseded by #50

Supersedes #11. The lead paragraph is "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)

18. Superseded by #63

The "Alma mater" infobox entry shows "Wharton School (BS Econ.)", does not mention Fordham University. (April 2017, April 2017, Aug 2020, Dec 2020)

19. Obsolete

Following deletion of Trump's official White House portrait for copyright reasons on 2 June 2017, infobox image was replaced by File:Donald Trump Pentagon 2017.jpg. (June 2017 for replacement, June 2017, declined REFUND on 11 June 2017) (replaced by White House official public-domain portrait according to #1 since 31 Oct 2017)

20. Mention protests in the lead section with this exact wording: His election and policies have sparked numerous protests. (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.)

21. Superseded by #39

Omit any opinions about Trump's psychology held by mental health academics or professionals who have not examined him. (July 2017, Aug 2017) (superseded by #36 on 18 June 2019, then by #39 since 20 Aug 2019)

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, upheld by RfC July 2024)

23. Superseded by #52

The lead includes the following sentence: 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).

24. Superseded by #30

Do not include allegations of racism in the lead. (Feb 2018) (superseded by #30 since 16 Aug 2018)

25. In citations, do not code the archive-related parameters for sources that 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)

35. Superseded by #49

Supersedes #7. Include in the lead: 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)

36. Superseded by #39

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. (June 2019) (paragraph removed per RfC Aug 2019 yielding consensus #39)

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)

45. Superseded by #48

There is no consensus to mention the COVID-19 pandemic in the lead section. (RfC May 2020, July 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. (RfC October 2021)

54. Include in the lead that, quote, Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in U.S. history. (RfC October 2021) Amended after re-election: After his first term, scholars and historians ranked Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history. (November 2024)

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:

1. Reply briefly with a link to Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias, optionally using its shortcut, WP:TRUMPRCB.
2. Close the thread using {{archive top}} and {{archive bottom}}, referring to this consensus item.
3. Wait at least 24 hours per current consensus #13.
4. 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)

66. Omit {{infobox criminal}}. (RfC June 2024)

67. The "Health habits" section includes: "Trump says he has never drunk alcohol, smoked cigarettes, or used drugs. He sleeps about four or five hours a night." (February 2021)

Sexual abuse allegations need to be mentioned in the lead

We really need to get the sexual abuse allegations back into the lead section. This was included there for ages before it was unilaterally removed by someone, it has an extremely lengthy in-depth article, Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations (which in itself is a very strong indication that a topic merits mention in the lead section of the main article), and it is one of the most defining features of Trump's presidency, second perhaps only to the scandals related to Russia. In the past someone claimed that there was no longer any coverage of this to justify its exclusion, a blatantly wrong and ridiculous claim. Just from today we have e.g.:

• Trump sex harassment accusers demand congressional inquiry, BBC
• Trump accusers renew sexual misconduct charges against him, say it was ‘heartbreaking’ to see him elected, The Washington Post
• Women detail sexual allegations against Trump, CNN
• Trump accusers band together, seek congressional probe of 'sexual misconduct', Fox News
• 4 Trump Accusers Call On Congress To Investigate Sexual Misconduct Claims, HuffPo
• Women accusing President Trump of sexual harassment call for a congressional investigation, USA Today
• https://www.usnews.com/news/top-news/articles/2017-12-11/women-accusing-trump-of-sexual-misconduct-seek-congressional-probe, US News & World Report
• Trump accusers call for Congress to investigate sexual harassment allegations against him, ABC News
• Women who accused Trump of sexual misconduct speak out, NBC
• Women who have accused Trump of inappropriate conduct, Reuters
• Three Trump Accusers Seek Congressional Probe, Bloomberg
• Women demand probe into alleged Trump sexual assaults, Al Jazeera
• 3 Female Accusers Call for Congress to Investigate President Trump for Sexual Harassment, TIME
• This is just the tip of the iceberg; I find hundreds of articles about this issue just from today from media around the globe

The coverage of this issue has been continous and extremely extensive for much more than a year – in addition this issue has received coverage (although not as much as today for obvious reasons, given that Trump was a comparatively obscure figure before he won the Republican nomination) for at least 30 years. The sexual abuse allegations are, next to the Russia thing, clearly the single most covered issue related to Trump in reliable sources, possibly the most covered issue. Certainly when we take his whole life into account this is the dominant story. It thus ought to feature prominently here. The fact that it already has a stand-alone article underlines that. Not mentioning it in the lead will clearly come across as strongly partisan/politically motivated and neither NPOV nor encyclopedic in any way. --Tataral (talk) 20:49, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Concur. Long term coverage and historically significant.Casprings (talk) 21:56, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 69#Shouldn't something about the sexual misconduct allegations be in the lead? for a recent discussion. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:05, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, this question was raised very recently after the Weinstein scandal broke out. Although the discussion was not a formal RfC, opinions varied widely on the suitability of this episode for the lede section. With 5 editors for and 11 against, I do not see a path to obtaining consensus for the lede. — JFG ^talk 23:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

You assume that few of the opposers would be swayed by the above list showing massive, high-quality RS coverage continuing through present day—which was not clearly shown in the previous discussion—and you may be right. Many editors simply can't be swayed. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I do not assume anything and would be happy to see a RfC if somebody cares to build a well-crafted proposal. Consensus may have changed with recent coverage. — JFG ^talk 23:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As one of the opposers in the discussion in Archive 69, I'm not swayed by that list at all. The question isn't whether the allegations are notable (they are; and they are discussed in depth at Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations), the question is whether they are relevant enough to be included in the lede. As a point of reference, they aren't mentioned in the lede at Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 either. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

In that case, Tataral, I suggest we stop farting around and start said RfC. Let me know if you need help framing or formatting it, I don't know how much of that you've done and it's often done wrong. It often helps to do it first in a sandbox, minus the {{Rfc}} template. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:40, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, an RfC would be a good idea. If you to want to help initiating one that would be most welcome. --Tataral (talk) 15:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@Tataral: I'll get something started in one of my sandboxes and then post here. No reason why it shouldn't be open to improvement by anybody, within reason. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:04, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@Tataral: Basic structure is here. Start by adding the "background" part. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Of course it doesn't belong in the campaign context. The allegations relate to Trump personally, not to the campaign.

As for the lead - I completely agree. I made similar arguments previously (in the middle of the discussion - they were largely unaddressed), and I also proposed that the sub-section on the allegations be shifted from the campaign section to the personal life section (see same discussion for more arguments). If you guys are going to set something up, feel free to take from that discussion as you'd like. Nick845 (talk) 02:07, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

THey should be in the lede. Anderson Cooper stated that the sexual assault allegations against Trump--in the form of the Billy Bush tape and the accusers--were the most covered issue of the campaign. Steeletrap (talk) 07:45, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Certainly belongs in the article intro, as the focus on his assault allegations are increasing by the day. Particularly in the wake of yesterday's tweet suggesting Senator Gillibrand would be a whore for campaign cash... Trump attacks Gillibrand in tweet critics say is sexually suggestive and demeaning. TheValeyard (talk) 17:15, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah that is not what the tweet or source says. Might even be a BLP vio. Perhaps you should reconsider what you wrote there. PackMecEng (talk) 17:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I know how to read. Do you? The passage in question, "...and would do anything for them..." has been characterized as sexually suggestive by critics, which the source has covered. TheValeyard (talk) 17:34, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Yup I can read just fine, do you understand WP:OR and that DS extends to talk pages? Because it certainly does not seem like it. Especially when you are putting words in their mouth calling people whores. PackMecEng (talk) 17:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

My view is that there’s an imminent court decision coming soon about whether the defamation case of Summer Zervos will go forward in state court. I suggest we wait for that upcoming decision, because it makes no sense to haggle about what (if anything) should go into this lead when it’s inevitably going to have to be changed soon, one way or another. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:31, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

There will continue to be something just over the horizon for some time. That nothing should be added until it's no longer subject to update is a really weak argument, considering that we are constantly editing the lead. But you are free to !vote No in the upcoming RfC, there is no rule against weak arguments. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

If there is to be an RfC I very much believe the BLP noticeboard should be notified as BLP issues are certainly involved. Personally, at this point, I think the existing five (?) paragraph lede may well be already overbalanced with three of those paragraphs dealing with his presidency. Should that to my eyes obvious violation of WP:WEIGHT be found acceptable, maybe the allegations might merit inclusion, but if there is in the eyes of enough others agreement with me on that point that would change things. On that basis, I might propose the RfC raise two questions, one regarding proportional WEIGHT in the lede and a second contingent question regarding the allegations. John Carter (talk) 21:56, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I strongly oppose further complication of this issue, as we already have enough complication to deal with, and I would suggest that you (1) !vote (or abstain) with the assumption that the lead will remain basically the same as to weight considerations, being the product of much discussion by many experienced editors, and (2) optionally start your own RfC about that. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

RfC framing

I'm interested in opinions about my framing in my sandbox. I see nothing wrong with the general question, leaving the specifics for a separate discussion, but some editors call "Malformed RfC question!" when you're not specific. "I can't !vote Yes when I don't know what content would be added." Then, when you're specific, many of the !votes are Opposes that propose a different specific, and consensus for any one specific is impossible. Comments? ―Mandruss ☎ 19:08, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Probably need another RfC if this one closes as including it, to selected a wording among possibilities. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:12, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I understand. Still, no matter what you say in the RfC opener, many editors will respond with "I can't !vote Yes when I don't know what content would be added." Combined with other No !votes, there will likely be enough of that to kill a Yes consensus. If the Yes consensus is killed, there is no follow-on RfC. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah that could happen. Should define what you mean by mention a little more clearly I reckon though. I assume it means close to "Many allegations of sexual misconduct have been made against him". Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't get the feeling that anyone would advocate more than a relatively simple, short, one-sentence mention of the allegations in the lead (certainly I wouldn't). Thus I think it would be a good thing if the RfC included in some way a proposed wording, such as "several women have accused him of sexual misconduct." Can we have two questions at the same time, a general question and a proposed wording? If the proposed wording is relatively uncontroversial, it would seem more efficient. --Tataral (talk) 19:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

If we move in the direction of specific, is there a reason not to go all the way? It's far more than several, and I would suggest "Since the 1980s, at least fifteen women have accused him of sexual misconduct." I'll await other comments on two questions at the same time. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:50, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Of course some (perhaps many) editors will Oppose the above unless it also mentions his blanket denial and counter-accusations of politically-motivated lying, per NPOV. Before long, it's too long for the lead. And so it goes. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:56, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

”Since the 1980s” is misleading (unintentionally no doubt). All of the accusations became public after he started his 2016 campaign, except for two (by Ivana Trump and Jill Harth) that were withdrawn. Also, it could easily be rephrased with zero additional words to include his denial. For example: “Since 2016, numerous women have accused him of sexual misconduct, which he has denied." Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:59, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

"Numerous" is well known for causing problems. In this context, it could reasonably be interpreted as anything from 5 to 200, and is therefore too vague. "Since 2016, more than one dozen women have accused him of sexual misconduct, which he has denied." I tried hard to find a way to express that the alleged incidents span several decades, but that introduced its own ambiguity, implying that all the women alleged incidents spanning several decades. Concise is the enemy of accurate. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

"Since 2016, more than one dozen women have accused him of sexual misconduct, which he has denied" looks like a good wording for the proposal. --Tataral (talk) 21:06, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok, with that endorsement and a "thanks" from Anythingyouwant, I have updated the sandbox accordingly. Let's wait a day or two for more comments here, as framing is critical. You still need to fill in the "background" part, which could largely be copy-and-paste from your opening post in this discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I would tweak it a little bit: "During 2016, about 15 women accused him of sexual misconduct years earlier, which he denied." That packs in more info with fewer words. But like I said, my view is that it's premature for us to make such an edit to the lead given that we'll know very soon whether there will be a case in state court or not. If such a case is rejected or postponed until after his presidency, then I'd leave all this stuff out of the lead. But otherwise it probably would need to be in the lead and phrased differently. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:42, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Given that there are ongoing accusations right now and that this is very much an ongoing issue which has been gaining much steam in the last week (see the links I posted) I think "since 2016" is better than "during 2016." Also, I'm not quite sure about the "years earlier" part; while perhaps technically correct it places a lot of emphasis on the fact that the more serious accusations relate to events from "long ago" and thus gives the impression that this is a matter that is mainly related to a long gone past, but the Donald Trump and Billy Bush recording where he discusses his habit of assaulting women isn't that old, being from the 2000s, and more to the point, his behaviour towards women is very much a current issue, which is the main reason it gets the attention that it does. Perhaps instead: "Since 2016, about 15 women have accused him of previous sexual misconduct, which he denied". Also, regarding the number 15, I'm not sure that we need the exact number in the lead, partly because it could change. So "several" or "over a dozen" would be good alternatives in my opinion. --Tataral (talk) 15:51, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

To get an idea of how to include this type of content in the lede, take a look at the last paragraph of the Bill Cosby article. Otherwise, a basic rule of thumb: If it deserves a section, then it must be mentioned in the lede. The weight is determined by the weight in the article, and if most of it has been spun-off into a large subarticle, then the size of that article, not the little mention left behind, determines the weight. This subject has great weight, not only because of how controversial it is, but by Trump's playboy life, a big part of his reputation.

Failure to include this content violates NPOV through use of editorial censorship guided by personal opinions, feelings, morals, etc. Stay neutral by leaving those things behind, looking at the content, and just DOING IT. It's supposed to be a cold, calculated, neutral decision. NPOV does not refer to neutral content, but to neutral editors. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:47, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: Ok, you're arguing for inclusion, which is fine. Some of us including me feel it's largely a waste of time to have that discussion outside of an RfC. At this point, particularly in this subsection, we're trying to nail down exactly how to frame such an RfC, and that seems to be stalled. Do you have an opinion that might help move things forward? ―Mandruss ☎ 21:58, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Don't you love meta-bike sheds? — JFG ^talk 23:10, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

What would you suggest as the alternative? ―Mandruss ☎ 04:00, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you that discussions on the merits are unproductive outside a proper RfC context. If I were in your shoes, I would just boldly start the RfC… I'm afraid I have no helpful opinion on how to frame the question, though. This subject has been very touchy. For the humour-impaired, this pun was intended. — JFG ^talk 09:57, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I've been intending to start one, it's just that I haven't had the time to get it done yet. Unless someone else does, I expect to start an RfC in a day or two. I think we have more or less agreed on a proposed wording, and that it's now a matter of small details. Possibly the RfC could indicate that the exact wording isn't set in stone; the main point should be to agree in principle that this material should be mentioned in some way. --Tataral (talk) 04:10, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

[1] - Good luck. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:10, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I checked out the draft page and I would oppose the sentence as it's currently written, as it doesn't fit anywhere in the current lead without being jarring to the reader. You might consider, instead of trying to make RfC respondents agree on a specific wording, simply ask if the Lead should make short mention of the accusations, and then if the response is yes, try to come up with a sentence (or better yet a half sentence) that works. ~Awilley (talk) 06:35, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

In principle I too would prefer a more general question. The lead currently isn't very well structured and in any event we will probably continue to make significant edits to it in the time to come. Therefore a more general decision is preferable in my view, while the exact wording and its placement in the lead should ideally be considered somewhat flexible, so that it can be integrated in the lead in a good way. But Mandruss suggested that people tend to complain if one doesn't propose a specific wording. Would a workable compromise be to phrase the main question in a general way as you suggest, and then propose a wording that should only be considered tentative? --Tataral (talk) 23:30, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Taken out upon RFC discussions re UNDUE and LEDE

This again ??? It was unstable 14 Oct 2016- 14 Nov 2016, and been taken out of lede since then due to RFC failing to get consensus, as the remover carefully said.

The minor event of 4 accusers had a PR appearance may be put to Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations, but is not significant there, let alone to this article or making a noticeable effect on his life -- he did get elected anyway for example.

To quote from when the question last re-re-returned ... Archive 46 ...

Tataral - to answer the initial question -- you're mistaken, the RFC consensus process ran against keeping this in the lead, it is in the template top for many Trump articles and in a lower subsection for this biographical article. It was discussed repeatedly, but in particular see Archive 31 and the Archive 35 entries. Th Sandstein note mentions reconsidering it again "after some time". Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Cheers again Markbassett (talk) 01:48, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

"No consensus" is not the same as "consensus to omit", and they should not be treated the same. There is nothing wrong with trying again and again until a consensus is reached either way. Sandstein's full comment, dated 13 Nov 2016 (13 months ago): "I therefore recommend that the discussion is repeated after some time to determine whether the issue is still considered to be of lead-worthy importance after the election." It's now after the election, and 13 months is easily "some time". Thus, Sandstein recommends this RfC. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:59, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

However, given that there have been several other events relevant to the subject in the past year, and the fact that there was no positive position of support roughly a year ago, before all the actions of his presidency and other areas getting attention, I believe it is in no way complicating things to ensure that the lede is found to be compliant with policy and guidelines in all ways, not just the one you are primarily interested. John Carter (talk) 02:37, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

13 months have passed since that debate, as noted by M, and we have seen sustained controversy related to this/coverage in RS. Only this week there have been hundreds and hundreds of newspaper articles about it. Just from the last few hours:

• Trump lashes out at senator amid calls to resign over sexual misconduct allegations, CNN
• Trump attacks senator and dismisses sexual harassment claims as Democratic conspiracy, The Guardian
• Trump’s Combative Denials Again Draw Him Into the Sexual Harassment Debate, The New York Times
• Lawmakers seek probe into alleged Trump sexual assaults, AJE
• Donald Trump Just Claimed He Never Met Women Accusing Him of Sexual Harassment. That's Not True, TIME
• How to handle the sexual misconduct accusations against Trump, Washington Post
• Trump accusers: Who are the women at the centre of sexual harassment allegations against the US President?, The Independent
• Democratic women unite on demand to investigate Trump: Nearly all of the women in the House Democratic Caucus on Tuesday called for the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee to investigate allegations that President Trump engaged in sexual misconduct before winning the White House, The Hill
• From 'locker room talk' on, Trump fends off misconduct claims, Politico
• Trump is reportedly furious at UN ambassador Nikki Haley for saying his accusers 'should be heard', Associated Press
• Trump's Own Department of Justice Will Decide Whether to Investigate Him for Alleged Sexual Misconduct, Newsweek
• White House Presents Weak Witnesses To Defend Trump From Sexual Harassment, Assault Claims, Newsweek
• Trump Blames Democrats for Fueling Sexual Abuse Claims, Voice of America
• Lawmakers seek probe into alleged Trump sexual assaults, AJE
• Trump allies worried about political costs of attacking his accusers: report
• The list goes on and on, even when only looking at coverage from the last 24 hours ...

Since the last time we debated this Trump has supported a far-right white supremacist candidate to the senate who is best known for the extensive allegations of sexual abuse made against him (the allegations against him are mentioned in the lead section of his biography, even though the allegations against Trump have received probably a hundred times more coverage in RS).

It's quite clear that there aren't any policy-based reasons not to include this issue, the most widely covered issue related to Trump, in the lead. --Tataral (talk) 04:26, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Al Jazeera is a reliable source now... 70.44.154.16 (talk) 05:03, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

As a person who opposes inclusion: I see no reason to oppose having another RFC on this topic at this time. I repeat that I am not impressed by the list of news stories, and will continue to not be impressed no matter how many links in CNN, Politico, etc. are presented. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:30, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Power~enwiki I'm just wondering what it would take for you to be convinced - would it be books about his life giving it a lot of weight? Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:17, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I doubt any references will convince me at this time, unless there's new information that emerges (not just more coverage of the same stories as before). power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Re "I doubt any references will convince me": That's fair enough, but you do realize that in that case we don't have to take your opinions on the matter into account, given that Wikipedia is based on the coverage in reliable sources, and not on our personal beliefs, e.g. about whether the coverage in RS is justified/fair/correct etc.? --Tataral (talk) 17:57, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't care if the Washington Post runs "Trump Sexual Harassment" as the A1 story for a month; if the news stories repeat the same coverage and there's no actual new news, it's not going in the lede based on "OMG so much coverage". Wikipedia articles are based on reliable sources, but this is ultimately an encyclopedia, not a dictatorship of vote-counting through links to web pages. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:28, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Put it in...it self evident that these allegations are relevant 2602:306:BD95:45F0:E45C:E70A:D878:7C31 (talk) 21:30, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

With this extensively disputed and having no apparent political or other impact, what would the lede say? Just as a practical matter, it seems to me that this would suck up a huge amount of editor resources that are more urgently needed to work on NPOV wording and sourcing throughout this article. SPECIFICO talk 22:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

what would the lede say? - Aren't we discussing exactly that in the preceding subsection? ―Mandruss ☎ 22:30, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Nothing significant has happened - since the last RFC took it out for UNDUE and LEAD, so no reason for a new RFC. Look, this article is WP:BLP and focuss on his life story -- and really this simply made no big impact to his life so it's just not deserving prominence. The guidance for WP:BLP is also to be restrained -- not to be a tabloid putting up WP:SENSATION or WP:SCANDAL. Given that the last comparison is Bill Clinton where lead mentions none of the accused rape, affair/stalking with settlement, infamous blue dress but only mentions the impeachment due to perjury ... I think this is just wasting time. This is still failing UNDUE and LEDE as before because really nothing significant has changed. Markbassett (talk) 03:23, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

We are all volunteers and free to waste our time as we see fit. You are not required to waste any more of yours. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:12, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually, just as a point of information, as per WP:DE and WP:TE, we are actually not all free to spend our time here entirely as we see fit, particularly as this page almost certainly qualifies for discretionary sanctions as per at least WP:ARBAP2. John Carter (talk) 01:44, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I am well aware that editors are not free to violate DE, TE, BLP, NOTFORUM, and various other things. I considered spending the time to make that comment 100% accurate, but I decided to give my audience credit for not taking everything so literally. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:28, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support running an RfC. It's probably a good time to test the consensus again. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:59, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support an RfC. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:34, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose wasting further time debating whether we should use the RfC process to (try to) decide a question that is clearly worthy of RfC. This is a near-comical example of How To Get Nothing Done. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:06, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
• Just do it. You don't have to hold an RfC to see if you can hold an RfC (though thanks for asking). Volunteer Marek 06:50, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose nothing notable has happened since then and now to warrant a new RFC. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 08:26, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose it is true that a person doesn't need to have agreement for an RfC, but some might raise DE or TE concerns if they seem an RfC has been originated without sufficient cause. I doubt anything of substance would be done to the originator the first time, but worst-case-scenario it might become significant should any sort of second mistake of that broad type be made. And frankly I don't know that the limited consensus of a smallish number of respondents, if such a consensus were even reached, would necessarily trump BLP concerns anyway. John Carter (talk)£
• Comment: Although it's nice to see that there is consensus for holding an RfC, we aren't really having an RfC over whether to hold an RfC. An RfC will be initiated eventually, probably this week, once discussion of how to frame it has been ended or no longer serves a meaningful purpose. --Tataral (talk) 11:37, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support as a person who is almost certainly going to oppose the RfC, I do encourage you to start it. I won't be online for about ten days to comment (likely in opposition), but there's clearly enough support to litigate this topic again. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:09, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support I have proposed new text below, with plenitude of references. Are those who oppose this being in the lead joking? Find another article about someone accused of sexual harassment where it isn't in the lead. Profane Username (talk) 23:15, 25 December 2017 (UTC) (Striking !vote by blocked sock.) ―Mandruss ☎ 19:49, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposed Text, with references

"Trump has been accused of sexual misconduct by 19 women.  Although Trump has denied the allegations, polls show most Americans believe the allegations are true.  At least 8 U.S. Senators have called on Trump to resign over the allegations. 

References

• 'Support As nom. Crystalline prose, cuts through the hazy fog and delivers knowledge to our readers. There is no reasonable argument to not include this in the lead, other than "It makes someone I genuflect towards look bad! Keep it out!" Profane Username (talk) 23:25, 25 December 2017 (UTC) (Striking !vote by blocked sock.) ―Mandruss ☎ 19:49, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. For starters, in matters of criminal law, polls are irrelevant. Number two, you conveniently omit the party affiliation of the Senators. Number three, as I’ve said before, I am watching to see whether there will be a trial in court about this involving Summer Zervos, and a decision on that is imminent. Number five, see the Bill Clinton lead, etc. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:00, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Comment Thanks for the input. I am comfortable changing it to 8 democratic U.S. Senators, if people would prefer. We can also cut the polls part if people find it irrelevant. Also, Clinton lead does mention the "sex scandal;" I'm not clear on the point there. Profane Username (talk) 04:02, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

The Clinton lead does not mention any of the Bill Clinton sexual misconduct allegations. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:25, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

It mentions the Lewinsky scandal and impeachment in the lead. Maybe it should mention a little more, but no more than a sentence. Try the format I suggest below. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:51, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Lewinsky was consenting adults and is not included in Bill Clinton sexual misconduct allegations. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:57, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually she is mentioned there. Some of the women mentioned in the misconduct article were also consensual relationships. I think we should keep the Lewinsky mention because of its significance. It led to an impeachment. Then add one more sentence in the same format as I propose below for Trump. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:10, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support short mention per our rules for a lede. As a rule of thumb, every subject worthy of a section should receive short mention in the lead. This is one of them. I suggest only the first sentence and denial, not the polls or rest. Also bundle the refs (not done here):

• "Trump has been accused of sexual misconduct by 19 women, and he has denied the allegations.

It should obviously be tweaked and lengthened if anything more comes of it, such as legal convictions or settlements. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:51, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

References

There are no footnotes in the lead, so I don’t see why we should start now. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:40, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

We don't have to use footnotes. I just copied what was written above. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:35, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support This is obvious, and no one throughout any of these discussions has made anything even approaching a persuasive point in opposition. It's getting absurd, really. Nick845 (talk) 05:30, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose The lede should serve as a general introduction as to why the subject is notable and the allegations have had no effect on his career. There's very little information about the allegations in this article, in fact this proposal would add more detail to the lede than currently appears in the rest of the article! Per WP:LEAD, everything mentioned in the lede should be sourced in the body and nothing regarding public response or senators asking for his resignation appears in the article. Should he resign, or should there be major developments with the Summer Zervos lawsuit, we should reassess. See this similar RfC regarding Al Franken, which largely decided not to include the allegations until they actually did affect his career.LM2000 (talk) 06:16, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• Generally speaking, the weight of the subject determines how much space we use in the lead. "Sexual misconduct allegations" is a nice sized summary of MULTIPLE sub-articles, and their weight and size should be factored in, not just the summary left behind in this article.

  The effect on his career is a rather irrelevant red herring. A man of his wealthy can get away with just about anything. He has stated that he could shoot (MURDER!) someone on Fifth Avenue and he wouldn't lose any supporters, a small minority of Americans. He's really saying that the murder would have NO EFFECT on his career, at least with that small minority. That's proving to be true, but it still has a great effect on his reputation with the vast majority of Americans and the rest of the world, so it actually does have an effect on his career. Payback just comes later for him. Karma is on its way. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:50, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• As discussed in the previous discussion on this issue, most of that section is about the fallout from the Billy Bush tape, which has not been proposed to be included here. I'll wait for Karma to catch up before I switch my !vote, as I did with Franken.LM2000 (talk) 07:05, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I would rather put child-out-of-wedlock into the BLPs of Pres. Warren Harding and Thomas Jefferson since there’s actual conclusive proof.[2] In contrast, these accusations regarding Trump never have been verified in court. That’s why I am waiting to see about the Summer Zervos case. Don’t rush karma. Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:21, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Whether or not it ends up in court only affects how we report it. We still report it. That's what we do. We report allegations, verified or not. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:30, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

It appears that both articles follow policy very nicely:

Harding's extramarital affairs are mentioned in a nice section: Warren G. Harding#Extramarital affairs, and in the lead.

Jefferson's affair with Sally Hemmings is likewise mentioned in a nice section: Thomas Jefferson#Jefferson–Hemings controversy, and in the lead. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:38, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

The Harding lead doesn’t say anything about children out of wedlock. Fine if it did though. Do you understand why? Because the facts are known. With Trump, a woman who never met him can tell a reporter in 2016 that she did meet him in 1985 on a date, and he touched her shoulder without explicit permission, or said something inappropriate, and wham she’s into the lead of his Wikipedia article. In contrast, there’s potentially an actual court case coming up soon, so why not wait and see what happens with that? I never remotely suggested we shouldn’t cover this stuff, but that can be done later than the lead. Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:50, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh, no. Not at all. We don't get into that kind of detail in the lead. The fact that a president has been accused by multiple women is very notable, has its own section, and multiple sub-articles. That's good enough for short mention in the lead, but usually not for listing the women and all the charges. We write a short summary, and readers can read the article for the details.

As far as Trump's well-known and highly publicized adulterous affairs while married, literally bragging/admitting/confessing his actual and repeated practice for many years of grabbing women by the pussy, and multiple women confirming he did it to them, and they didn't like it, that's very different than your weird and unreal scenario of some woman he's never met falsely accusing him. Not only do we not have or know of such cases, if we did they obviously don't "wham she’s into the lead of his Wikipedia article". They would not get mentioned here. You lost quite a bit of credibility with that one. Be more serious and address what he's actually done, confirmed by himself and those he did it to.

As far as court cases, those can be dealt with as they come. Some may be worth mention in the lead, and others not. -- BullRangifer (talk) 09:00, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

You’re suggesting that every weird and sketchy accusation go into the lead, not by name, but by increasing the number we give. For instance, his ex-wife Ivanka said some stuff in a divorce proceeding and later recanted, but we would use her to pad the number in the lead. Same with some others. Some of the accusations are more serious than others. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is not a properly formatted RfC, it has entirely ignored all the previous discussion on how to frame the question, and I wouldn't support the proposed wording here or having 3 sentences and 16 footnotes about this in the lead. It should be just one sentence. Note that my oppose here is of a technical nature and entirely unrelated to the question of whether the abuse allegations as such should be mentioned in the lead. I will start a proper RfC later, but it was delayed due to the discussion on how to frame the question + christmas. --Tataral (talk) 05:40, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per Tataral above and on the basis of possible BLP issues regarding as of yet still questionable mere allegations, even if I do personally think he did so in at least a few of them, and with concerns regarding WEIGHT in a highly charged political article about a politician many people have serious preexisting opinions involving dislike and distrust, which I tend to share but I acknowledge are still relevant issues particularly regarding material which some might with some justification maybe be in the lead of one or more of the spinout articles but not necessarily of the main article.
• There is I think a real question considering how many chronological and other kinds of subarticles this topic should have, particularly with his decades long habit of lunging for every camera he sees and the accompanying mountain of information about him which might reasonably qualify for inclusion somewhere here. I might myself see if the article could be broken up into at least three chronological subarticles for early business career, the period of his trying to be a media star, and his political career first. John Carter (talk) 19:21, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose while I'm likely to oppose any version, the reference-bombing and excessive detail makes this a complete non-starter. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Global warming position

Not convinced that the section dealing with Trump's position on climate change is representative of the facts. To say that Trump does not accept the science sounds rather too legitimate, as if he has a well-considered contrary position. This is followed by a sentence which states that he said in 2012 that climate change is a hoax, but that he was joking - as if it was a mere false step, or that he has even an iota of credibility in this area whatsoever.

We know that he continued with his conspiracy theory in December 2013:

• http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/you-are-so-stupid-it-painful-trump-blasted-saying-us-could-use-good-old-global-warming-1653076

... and several times in 2014:

• https://www.snopes.com/donald-trump-global-warming-hoax/

... and in 2015 and 2016:

• http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/03/hillary-clinton/yes-donald-trump-did-call-climate-change-chinese-h/
• https://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeremy-symons/trump-now-blames-scientis_b_11228538.html

... and of course we have seen in the last few days of 2017 a lot of headlines about buffoonish comments on global warming thanks to some localized snowfall.

Here are some more sources, all of which describe or characterize Trump as a denialist or conspiracy theorist:

• https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/11/president-trump-global-climate-change-denial-environment/
• https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/12/donald-trump-climate-change-skeptic-denial/510359/
• https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/trump-and-the-truth-climate-change-denial
• http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/37936740/what-climate-change-deniers-like-donald-trump-believe
• http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-not-deleting-climate-change-denial-tweets-despite-chinese-hoax-global-warming-claims-a7332396.html
• https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-19/how-trump-climate-denial-is-catalyzing-the-world-quicktake-q-a

There are hundreds more.

• Propose that the current formulation:

Trump does not accept the scientific consensus on climate change. In 2012, he said that global warming was a hoax invented by the Chinese, but later said that he was joking.

... should read:

Trump is a climate change denier. He has frequently expressed an opinion that climate change is a hoax or a conspiracy arranged for the economic benefit of China. Cpaaoi (talk) 12:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think you'll find good enough sourcing to use the term "denier". Most reliable sources don't use that term when describing Trump and this article should reflect mainstream viewpoints. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

You mean apart from the BBC, The Independent, National Geographic, Bloomberg, The Atlantic, CBS News, Newsweek, HuffPost, The Guardian? Denying denialism? Cpaaoi (talk) 12:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

You didn't provide any sources to back up your claim. I checked the four listed in the OP and none of them label Trump as a "denier". But should you find any, please don't cherry-pick. Our goal is not to find the most incriminating sources and use them to write an article. Instead, Wikipedia articles are supposed to represent mainstream viewpoints. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

If one has many cherries, it may that one is being selective. Or one may simply be standing in a cherry-tree orchard. All the following describe Trump as denying, being a denier/denialist/disbeliever, or being considered a denier:

* https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/673005/Trump-the-climate-change-denier-Republican-hires-top-sceptic-as-energy-advisor/amp

* https://thinkprogress.org/trump-even-gets-climate-denial-wrong-889a61198961/

* http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/stasi-hurricane-trump-taps-climate-change-denier-nasa-article-1.3464200

* http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/donald-trump-myron-ebell-are-climate-deniers-dream-team-heres-why-1592338

* https://news.sky.com/story/sky-views-why-trump-denies-climate-change-10677570

* https://socialistworker.co.uk/art/44720/Climate+change+denier+Donald+Trump+takes+US+out+of+Paris+climate+deal

* http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/17/beijing-to-trump-climate-change-is-not-a-chinese-hoax/

* https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2017/03/13/trumps-epa-chief-is-a-climate-change-denialist-why-is-anyone-surprised/#ecbf01822fc7

* https://friendsoftheearth.uk/climate-change/what-are-donald-trumps-policies-climate-change-and-other-environmental-issues

* https://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/09/24/donald-trump-i-dont-believe-in-climate-change/

* https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/meet-myron-ebell-the-climate-contrarian-leading-trumps-epa-transition/

* https://newrepublic.com/article/143066/trumps-cowardly-new-form-climate-change-denial

* http://prospect.org/article/will-harvey-dent-trump%E2%80%99s-climate-change-denial-probably-not

* http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/338721-bloomberg-trumps-climate-change-denial-is-embarrassing

* https://www.salon.com/2016/11/14/denying-climate-change-is-only-part-of-it-5-ways-donald-trump-spells-doom-for-the-environment_partner/

* https://www.democracynow.org/2017/7/13/donald_trump_s_climate_change_denial

* https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2017/05/09/trumps-climate-change-denial-rattles-u-s-businesses/?utm_term=.44e8ae4588c9

* http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-climate-20161127-story.html

* http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/12/trump-climate-timeline/

* https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/06/opinion/sunday/as-donald-trump-denies-climate-change-these-kids-die-of-it.html

Want more? Cpaaoi (talk) 13:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC):

The first link doesn't call Trump a denier. The second link isn't a reliable source. The third is an opinion piece and is only reliable for the opinions of its author. I stopped at that point. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Nice try. First link: "Donald Trump has cemented his stance as a ‘climate change denier’...". And I'm glad you've stopped. (But if we're focusing on opinions - as if there might be some stone tablet on which Trump is labeled a denier! - here's the opinion of Stephen Hawking:

"By denying the evidence for climate change, and pulling out of the Paris Climate Agreement, Donald Trump will cause avoidable environmental damage to our beautiful planet, endangering the natural world, for us and our children." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-40461726.) Cpaaoi (talk) 14:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) OK, that makes one out of seven (assuming the Express counts as a reliable source and not an opinion piece). Either way, your own sources are proof that that term is not widely used by reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Again, the BBC article you provide says no such thing. That's a quote from (apparently) Stephen Hawking, not BBC News. You are now 1 for 8. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:12, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea how you are scoring this. Interesting that you first said that the article should represent "mainstream viewpoints", but are now dismissing "mainstream viewpoints" as opinion. Are we trying to have it both ways? Anyway, I thought you stopped? Cpaaoi (talk) 14:14, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Cpaaoi, I agree with the general point you're trying to make. I think you can avoid the argument you're in by using: Trump does not accept the scientific consensus on climate change. He has frequently expressed an opinion that climate change is a hoax or a conspiracy arranged for the economic benefit of China. O3000 (talk) 14:21, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I think your version would certainly be an improvement, O3000. I would personally still cleave to denier; if it walks like a denier and it quacks like a denier (and lots of journalists and commentators call it a denier) then it is probably a denier. But that's why I'm asking for opinions here; I'll step back and see what others say. Cpaaoi (talk) 14:32, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Cpaaoi: Simple: I am looking for third-party reliable sources which call Trump a denier. Non-reliable sources don't count. Opinion pieces don't count. Quotes don't count. I'm looking for actually, bona-fide news coverage from respected news sources.

Keep in mind that "denier" is a word to watch and a contentious label. It should only be used when widely used by reliable sources. Quite honestly, it's not widely used by reliable sources and therefore shouldn't be used in this article.

If you want to make another suggestion that doesn't use "denier", go ahead. Until then I see this as a non-starter. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:26, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

You've got two long lists above. I'm not going to go further with you, A Quest For Knowledge. WP:LISTEN Cpaaoi (talk) 14:32, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm a volunteer. I don't get paid to check your sources. All I can say is that I checked 8 that you provided, and at best, only one supports your argument. You need to prove that it's widely used. Instead, your own sources are evidence that it's not widely used. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:37, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

You may find difficulty getting anyone to look through your list. I saw in the titles socialistworkerparty, stevensalzberg, blogs, and opinion and didn’t bother clicking on the links. Better to have a shorter list of better sources. I also think using labels will result in a year of reverts and arguments. The text can be strengthened without using a contentious label. Also, keep in mind that accusations of WP:DE can be DE. O3000 (talk) 14:44, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, most of those sources are either unreliable or opinion articles. Most of the sources by mainstream publications like the NYT or WSJ are blogs and opinion articles they decided to publish. I really hope you (Cpaaoi) didn't expect to convince anyone through the socialistworkerparty, Mother Jones, Think Progress, Salon, etc., links. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:30, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose proposed change. I honestly don't see the proposed revised text as any improvement on what is already in the article. Even though Trump is clearly a climate change denier, it is going to be very difficult to organize a consensus around calling Trump a "climate change denier" in Wikipedia's voice. The existing text makes his nonsensical position quite clear, and I feel that is sufficient. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
• I don't think the proposed sentence is an improvement and labeling someone like that isn't very encyclopedic. However looking at the current sentence makes me want to replace "does not accept" with "rejects". ~Awilley (talk) 20:50, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Replacing "does not accept" with "rejects" would be fine with me. I'm tempted to make the change myself, but it's probably better to get more feedback given that this is a contentious topic. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
    • "Rejects" is a YUGE improvement. I would see such a change as a non-controversial improvement to the language. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:51, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
      • It's been several days (well, over a week) so I went ahead and made the change. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• A Quest For Knowledge, good move. That's simpler, accurate, and makes the point. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:42, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support O3000's version; he's made ample comments since 2012. Oppose using "denier", which has multiple problems. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposed change to Alma mater naming convention

Hi all, I'm proposing a change to the wording of the Alma mater that was decided as per Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 56#Universities in infobox. I mainly came across this as a Wharton undergraduate alumnus myself, who noticed the odd naming convention used for the infobox's Alma mater section.

Currently, it's displaying as "The Wharton School", which is not the proper name of the university that President Trump graduated from. Instead, Wharton is a school within the University of Pennsylvania. I propose that we spell out both Wharton and the University of Pennsylvania in the combined format, "Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania".

Some supporting reasons for this change:

1. The degree conferred to Wharton undergraduates is from the University of Pennsylvania
2. Penn advises its students to spell out both the University itself and the school in their resume samples - [Source]
3. If President Trump had instead attended the College of Arts and Sciences at Penn, we would not simply be writing "The College" under his Alma Mater
4. Other alumni of Wharton around Wikipedia either spell out the combined version with both Penn & Wharton or just write University of Pennsylvania followed by the degree in parenthesis. E.g., Elon Musk, Sundar Pichai, Jon Huntsman Sr.
5. Writing "The Wharton School" alone may be more acceptable for MBA graduates, but generally unseen for undergraduates
6. Our own article for Wharton spells out "Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania" as the page title — "The Wharton School" redirects to this page.

chsh (talk) 04:46, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• Naming the University seems like the conventional choice. Though most universities have colleges, naming the college only seems to come up with pretentious prestigious colleges. GCG (talk) 02:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposing a change to the first sentence

As seen in other articles on US presidents, the lede begins with (name) is an American politician (and whatever else they may be) who served/is serving as the nth President of the United States (from x to y).

Example 1: Ronald Wilson Reagan (/ˈreɪɡən/; February 6, 1911 – June 5, 2004) was an American politician and actor who served as the 40th President of the United States from 1981 to 1989. Example 2: William Jefferson Clinton (born William Jefferson Blythe III; August 19, 1946) is an American politician who served as the 42nd President of the United States from 1993 to 2001.

I am proposing that the lede be changed to:

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, businessman and television personality who is currently serving as the 45th and current President of the United States, in office since January 20, 2017.

CatcherStorm ^talk 04:27, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, but this has been discussed here at great length, multiple times, and the current lede is the consensus version. See "Current consensus #17" at the top of this page. --MelanieN (talk) 04:50, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Melanie. I don't like the "blank who is serving as" for any sort of politician article. For example, what sounds better: "Bob Jones is a member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Texas's 1st district" or "Bob Jones is an American Republican Party politician who is currently serving as the U.S. Representative from Texas's 1st district"? I'd go with the former. MB298 (talk) 04:57, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Consensus can change. The unusual construct we currently have is there to satisfy those editors who didn't like the idea of Trump being called a politician, even though he absolutely is. I think the proposal by CatcherStorm has merit. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:30, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

IMO it's more about repetition (I've argued the same for Obama etc). President is a title and what is most associated with Trump - should be first. Politician adds nothing to the fact that he is president. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:41, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Disagree. A politician (in elected democracies, anyway) is someone who is seeking election, or has been elected to engage in political activities. Every article Wikipedia has on politicians refers to them as politicians except this one, and only because Trump doesn't like to be thought of as a politician and so editors who are (mostly) of a certain political persuasion have seen to it that the article reflects his wishes. In the future, I have no doubt the article will be normalized and this nonsensical situation will end. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:15, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Of course, Trump supporters are the reason Trump isn't called a politician here, please. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 21:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - For each example precedent supporting the change, I have no doubt I could find at least one not supporting it, and there is no real need for inter-article consistency here. I'm not aware of any guideline support for that rationale, and that's not likely to be an oversight by the community. One could make a decent argument that this kind of consistency would be dry and boring for readers. We might as well propose that all sentences should have the same length. So I tend to discount such "appeals to precedent".
  While consensus can change, I don't see any new argument, certainly not enough new argument to revisit this so soon simply because we might get a different result with a different mix of participants. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:07, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

@Mandruss: See the ledes of Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George H. W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, Richard Nixon, Lyndon B. Johnson, and John F. Kennedy. They all refer to them as American politicians, until around Dwight D. Eisenhower. I believe this is because they were modern-era presidents, as Trump is. I think we should involve Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Presidents in this discussion. CatcherStorm ^talk 19:55, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support Its not just American presidents. Theresa May, Emmanuel Macron, Angela Merkel, Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, & Justin Trudeau all use this style.GCG (talk) 02:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
• Weak Support the proposal here needs copy-editing (currently serving as the 45th and current is awkward), but I agree that the proposal here matches the style on most other world leaders. (but not all; e.g. Shinzo Abe) power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:58, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Sexual misconduct allegations in the lead

Should the lead include mention of the allegations of sexual misconduct on Trump's part? --Tataral (talk) 08:02, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

This would summarize content already in the article body, in this subsection.

If yes, I tentatively propose the wording "Since 2016, about 15 women have accused him of previous sexual misconduct, which he denied", but I would like to note that the exact wording shouldn't be considered to be set in stone, and that we might need to adjust it as things develop.

If you agree in principle with the proposal to include mention of the allegations but do not support the exact wording proposed above, you may support the proposal but indicate that you don't support the exact wording proposed – if necessary we will have a new discussion or RfC about the exact wording.

Survey: Sexual misconduct allegations in the lead

Yes – include in the lead
No – do not include in the lead

• Yes: The sexual misconduct allegations against Donald Trump were the most widely covered issue in reliable sources during the presidential election. The issue continues to receive extensive coverage in reliable sources, more than a full year later. Its importance is highlighted by the fact that the coverage of the allegations against Trump are linked to a broader discussion of sexual misconduct in society. For examples of recent sources, I refer to the previous discussion we had on this[3]. During his presidential term so far, the sexual misconduct allegations are, next to the Russia issue, clearly the single most covered issue related to Trump in reliable sources, possibly the most covered issue.′

As a rule of thumb, any issue worthy of an in-depth stand-alone article should be considered notable enough for at least a brief mention in the lead section of the main article on the relevant subject. The misconduct allegations have such an in-depth stand-alone article, Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations. --Tataral (talk) 08:02, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• No. Insignificant in relation to the rest of activities. Should he face impeachment or significant legal action this may be different. RfC is not neutrally worded.Icewhiz (talk) 13:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• RfC is not neutrally worded. Fixed after discussion.[4] ―Mandruss ☎ 16:02, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• Yes to the idea, but no to the proposed wording. It is very well reported that Trump has been accused by multiple people on multiple occasions, but the dating and number of accusations I don't think are appropriate. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
• Yes to the idea, but no to the proposed wording (yes, there's an echo in here). I'm uncomfortable with the lede having things like "about 15 women" in it, because it sounds vague. My preferred text would be something like this: "Trump has been credibly accused of sexual misconduct, which he has denied." I use "credibly" because the Access Hollywood tape has him admitting it. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:45, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
• No As with my comments regarding Woody Allen and Al Franken's (pre-resignation) ledes, allegations should have some palpable effect on the subject's career before it gets entered into the lede. The similar RfC for Al Franken seemed to be headed in to a similar conclusion until his resignation made it redundant. Per WP:LEAD, the introduction should be a short and simple summary of why he is notable. There's no denying that the allegations have received coverage but it's hard to believe that his social media behavior, a daily topic amongst all print and television media, doesn't get more. We even have a lengthy article about that behavior too (Donald Trump on social media) but it doesn't belong in the lede either. There's also the WP:WEIGHT issue; there's very little about the allegations in this article, almost all of the relevant section deals with the Billy Bush tape. We should revisit this if something does happen, which ended up being the case with Franken.LM2000 (talk) 15:53, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

LM2000, WEIGHT?? Donald Trump Access Hollywood tape and Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations creates enormous weight. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

We can always add the mention of social media later on, but I doubt that people would accept it if this RfC fails. Just to avoid any possible misunderstandings or confusion, I am not saying that we should say yes to this so that people are not dissuaded from future RfC's but just that we should not keep information out of the lead just because we have not decided to yet put other information into the lead. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) No unless it becomes a bigger issue in his life for some other reason, for example a high profile lawsuit. These allegations have simply not impacted him or his biography in a big way. They could be important in the biography of someone who has fewer reasons to be notable, but Trump's biography is so full of notable things that the sexual allegations are not currently worthy of inclusion in the lede. He's been described as "Teflon", i.e., these accusations have failed to stick. And I disagree with your assertion that these allegations are the second-most covered issue related to Trump. How about his finances and refusal to release his tax returns? How about his popularity with, and empowering of, white nationalists? Those things are not in the lede. We have discussed this before; consensus was to include the allegations in the text but not the lede; that's still my opinion. --MelanieN (talk) 16:17, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

P.S. I should add that if anything, these allegations are LESS worthy of inclusion now, a year into his very eventful presidency, than they were when we previously reached consensus not to include them. --MelanieN (talk) 16:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

The passage of time makes these multiple, credible accusations no less ghastly. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:48, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Maybe not, but it adds other information with a higher-priority claim to inclusion in the lede. --MelanieN (talk) 17:40, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• No. He is innocent until proven guilty, and this would be a BLP violation.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• (Responses moved to Discussion.) ―Mandruss ☎ 08:18, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

• No The allegations fail weight. PackMecEng (talk) 17:06, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• PackMecEng, WEIGHT?? Donald Trump Access Hollywood tape and Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations creates enormous weight. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Not so much actually given his overall life and notability. PackMecEng (talk) 03:32, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

But enough for short mention in the lead. Keep in mind that we aren't just talking about some past events, but an ever-present and unresolved series of accusations, IOW Justice delayed is justice denied. When you see a picture of him, imagine a bucket about to be poured over his head. It's in the picture all the time, until this gets resolved in a court of law. It's a weighty matter. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

It's undue weight to say that a dude has bragged about "grabbing [women] by the pussy" when he said it? A lad insane talk 03:44, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT is not about moral judgments and nobody here is making a moral judgment argument. At issue (mainly) is amount of RS coverage, and importance relative to the rest of Trump's life. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I've seen plenty of coverage, but I tend more toward liberal news media, maybe they cover that more. A lad insane talk 04:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• No per MelanieN.- MrX 17:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
• No per LM200. Unless Trump is forced to resign because of them, the allegations do not belong on the lede. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 02:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
• Yes. In fact, we have no other choice but to do it without violating LEAD and NPOV. It certainly has the weight (enough for at least two sub-articles), and since it deserves its own section (and articles), it should be mentioned. One sentence may be enough. Failure to mention is a serious multiple-policy violation. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:20, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
• No. I think it violates both WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. MB298 (talk) 03:58, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
• No I love that the two prior votes are Yes/No citing violation of the same policy. I think a clearer read is WP:PROPORTION. If he had materialized from the ether in 2015, this goes in the lede as proportional. But DT has been a nationally known figure for 35 years; his is a long and meandering story. I would compare and contrast Clinton, whose lede mentions Lewinsky (because of impeachment) but not Jones/Flowers despite them being huge players in his story. For the record, I am a DT hater. GCG (talk) 16:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• No POV, unproven and unimportant in relation to such things as policy and accomplishments. Besides, we now know that some women were paid to claim sexual misconduct by Trump.Phmoreno (talk) 18:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• @Phmoreno: Who's "we"? I don't know that, and I don't see it at Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations. Got a solid RS link or a pointer to within that article? ―Mandruss ☎ 19:06, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

If I had to guess they probably mean this and this. People offered money for victims to come forward and the thought was that some might be false just to get the money. Kind of shady but so far no proof that any made it up for the money. PackMecEng (talk) 19:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Presenting unproven allegations as fact in the same breath (!vote) as opposing content about allegations because they're unproven. Nice. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• No per MelanieN. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:53, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
• No I don't give a rat's ass if we have this discussion every week of every month, until something new comes up I'm going to stick by a big fat NO. Hopefully all of the people pushing this rubbish crap migrate to RationalWiki. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 21:35, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
• No per MelanieN and others. I also note in response to Bull TomKat is at least one recent case of a media frenzy topic which became in time a huge standalone article and is now a much shortened redirect. Cruise and Rrump are both individuals who are in the constant spotlight and could theoretically have dozens or hundreds of articles about them based on news coverage alone. But that is one of the reasons wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. John Carter (talk) 21:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
• Yes per Tataral and BullRangifer etc. The lead is currently short, so there is no problem adding this along with the other issues mentioned by MelanieN. zzz (talk) 08:45, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
• Yes; the coverage is and was overwhelming to the point where it seems silly to say that it is WP:UNDUE. The WP:NPOV arguments - and, even more vacantly, the argument that some editors don't find the accusations credible - are specious because our job is simply to report what that overwhelming coverage says; the fact that the accusations exist is well-cited, and the overwhelming waves of coverage surrounding them (combined with continued coverage even today) shows that they are obviously WP:DUE. Most of the !votes to omit therefore seem to be a variation on WP:IDONTLIKEIT - people who recognize that it is well-cited, recognize the heavy coverage, but who feel that the coverage itself is biased or undue or untrustworthy or something along those lines. But those are not valid arguments, and omitting such an otherwise obviously notable aspect of the topic from the lead would be an unequivocal WP:NPOV violation itself. --Aquillion (talk) 09:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

• Not taking a position (yet), but WP:BALASP ≠ WP:IDONTLIKEIT. And I think at least some of the UNDUE !votes are actually BALASP !votes with the wrong shortcut—they are both parts of NPOV—and some people are making BALASP-like arguments without citing it (people in both groups might wish to update their !votes for clarity). Also note that PROPORTION, cited above, is a helpful (not) alias for BALASP. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:55, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

• No, not in the lead - per WP:BLP guidance to write conservatively and it has not had such a significant impact on his life to suit WP:LEAD. Mostly it seems an election event, now seeing a bit of post-Weinstein interest but nothing new has happened. Also, I would suggest 'numerous' in the sectionn of the article rather than a specific numbering as the cites say 15 and 17 and 19, and the individuals do not match and not all are current. Markbassett (talk) 20:03, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
• Yes, include rape allegations in the introduction. After discussion on Jimbotalk and reflection. Trump's personality is essential to convey accurately. EllenCT (talk) 15:26, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• @EllenCT: This RfC has nothing to do with any rape allegations. It's about whether to summarize with one sentence the content at Donald Trump#Sexual misconduct allegations. The word rape does not occur there, and none of the allegations there approach rape. You may wish to revise (or re-evaluate) your !vote. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:25, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

The word "rape" currently occurs ten times in Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations. Those accusations should be summarized in the lead of the main article. EllenCT (talk) 16:40, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@EllenCT: Look a little deeper. The only rape allegation at that article is one Ivana made during their messy divorce, which she has since pretty much disavowed. It is considered so insignificant that it didn't make it into this article. It constitutes maybe 5% of what we would be summarizing in the one sentence here, if that, so the bolded part of your !vote simply misstates the question. Worse, it makes me wonder whether you fully understand the question. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:49, Today (UTC−6)

[5], [6], and [7] should also be summarized here and in the WP:SUMMARY articles. EllenCT (talk) 17:22, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• Yes per BullRangifer. If it's important enough to justify an entire article here, then WP:LEAD demands inclusion. Gamaliel (talk) 16:43, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "If it's important enough to justify an entire article here, then WP:LEAD demands inclusion." Which policy or guideline says that? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:30, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
    • The lead is, by definition, the summary of the most important topics in an article. A topic significant enough to justify a lengthy article of its own makes it one of the most important topics in that article. Gamaliel (talk) 17:55, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
• No It's WP:UNDUE weight. The accusations were a minor scandal and failed to make any significant impact. It's in the body of the article where it should be. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:34, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• ?? Some of these accusations have been around for years. They just resurfaced and a few more women came forward. Their due weight is not based on the amount of footage in this article (a section required to be left behind when spinning off a large amount of material), but on the at least two sub-articles on the subject. There is abundant weight. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:25, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• WP:Weight isn't determined by its prevalence in other articles (or popularity among Wikipedia editors), but its prevalence in third-party reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:09, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

• Agreed. The specific number and nature of extant articles on a current events type topic like this one will almost always be both comparatively incomplete and somewhat biased based on the amount of effort and time any individual editor is willing to expend on it. Also, as I think most of us know, it would certainly be possible to try to game the system by such unbalanced spinout articles by individual editors or groups of editors, knowingly or unknowingly. John Carter (talk) 22:32, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

• No. Tough decisions must be made. There simply isn't the real estate for anything on this subject. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
• Yes. Close question. For precedent I checked out Warren G. Harding, whose dalliances are mentioned in the lead section. In Trump's case, his sexual behavior practically sank his candidacy. While a close question, not a slam dunk, I would favor yes. (Summoned by bot) Coretheapple (talk) 00:46, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
• No - For now. Inclusion would give WP:UNDUE weight and they are of course allegations. Mention is the body is adequate. Meatsgains (talk) 03:14, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
• Yes - There is ample policy on both sides of this issue, and no way to weigh it except by gut feel. My gut feel is as follows.
  WP:NPOV is not about avoiding negative content, and it seems to me we go a little too far in trying to avoid the appearance of anti-Trump bias. Of the 408 words in the lead, the following might be said to be Trump-negative: "...first without prior military or government service ... despite getting less of the popular vote ... election and policies have sparked numerous protests." I don't think that proportion fairly represents the body of reliable sources on Trump. He is objectively one of the two most controversial U.S. presidents since Nixon, Clinton being the other, and our current lead does not reflect that reality. It might as well be talking about Eisenhower.
  I'm not terribly interested in "but what about issues X and Y" reasoning for the purpose of this RfC, as we could still be debating such things when Trump leaves office. Considering the lead's current length relative to the length of the article, there is room to add other things to the lead if they are deemed to have equal or greater importance. That does not need to further complicate this already complicated question in my view. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:56, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Discussion: Sexual misconduct allegations in the lead

Process discussion Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:06, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Tataral The background section just seems to be your rationale and so should be part of your "yes" !vote Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:11, 4 January 2018 (UTC) I don't see why. The background section is one particular's editor's proposal (or rationale for the proposal which is the subject of the RfC) which other editors are free to agree or disagree with. It's not supposed to be "neutral". In any event, the particular structure of the RfC was discussed for almost a month (with a draft found here User:Mandruss/sandbox) before it was started with no objection to that. --Tataral (talk) 12:38, 4 January 2018 (UTC) All of the text preceding the first recognizable signature is copied to the RfC listings. That part should be a concise and neutral statement of the question or proposal. I've taken the liberty of copying your signature above and the listings should be updated by the bot within an hour. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:13, 4 January 2018 (UTC) After reviewing WP:RFC and the essay WP:WRFC, I think this is a case where common practice has diverged from the guidelines. As I'm philosophically opposed to that, I now agree that your rationale should be moved to your !vote. Apologies for the bad steer. Although not technically necessary, I would add another sig following your instructions. When this is resolved, this discussion can be collapsed as "Process discussion". ―Mandruss ☎ 14:01, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Yup, that's why I was asking him to move it. Doesn't make sense to privilege one rationale to appear at the top. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC) @Galobtter: So in your view a 3-word "Support as proposer" !vote would be improper in an RfC? It requires that the proposer's rationale has been previously stated; otherwise it's a vote, not a !vote. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:29, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Yeah, would be improper I think, better to have the rationale with the !vote. I think this is mostly needed when it is formatted like this, with a seperate sections for the survey and what not. Could confuse/mislead people (inexperienced users etc) to have that there. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:48, 4 January 2018 (UTC) I don't understand what you're saying after the first sentence, but I'll read that as a "yes". I have no problem with that, but it confirms that "common practice has diverged from the guidelines." I see "Support as proposer" all the time, including from many very experienced editors. The RfC Reform Movement starts here. ;) ―Mandruss ☎ 14:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC) I can't say I've seen a lot of "support as proposer" !votes in RfCs. TONS of them in AfDs, however. What bugs me the most is how RfCs are now being used at the first introduction of an idea, rather than as a way to resolve deadlocks, etc. This is particularly a problem in politics-related articles. Why wasn't this proposal introduced in "regular order" (or whatever you want to call it)? -- Scjessey (talk) 15:01, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Huh? This has been discussed multiple times before (recently too), with a mixed response. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Mandruss more offtopic stuff but people also forget that there's no requirement for RfCs to run 30 days and so much more.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Scjessey, there is some discussion still on this page, and it's been discussed before. I think experience tells us that RfCs are more likely to produce a clear consensus than open discussion, anyway. If we go straight to RfC, we're just saving a ton of time in many cases. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:11, 4 January 2018 (UTC) I think that is a function of how polarized editors have become. More or less every discussion in the US politics topic is now a form of dispute resolution. This is a relatively new development - RfC's were considered one of the last resorts as recently as a couple of years ago. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC) I'm quite ok with new developments. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:21, 4 January 2018 (UTC) We have had endless discussions on this issue, including most recently nearly a full month of discussion on whether to have an RfC. I see that some people are now "voting" against the tentatively proposed wording. That's ok, but it's a pity that they didn't weigh in in the previous discussion during the last month that focused particularly on the proposed wording in the upcoming RfC. --Tataral (talk) 15:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

(The following !vote and responses were copied/moved from Survey.) ―Mandruss ☎ 08:18, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

• No. He is innocent until proven guilty, and this would be a BLP violation.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• In light of #MeToo and Trump's comments about Hillary Clinton, the "innocent until proven guilty" defense looks completely ridiculous. Besides, reliably-sourced information presented in the right weight would not be a BLP-violation. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:48, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• Zigzig20s, you've been here long enough to know there is no violation of BLP. There is abundant RS sourcing to document that these allegations exist. That's all we're doing. All other articles for high profile men with such allegations include mention in the lead. Guilt or innocence is totally irrelevant. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:25, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
• Absent specific policy links, I agree with Scjessey and BullRangifer. We don't get to invent our own inclusion criteria and slap policy acronyms on them. I would expect a competent closer to discount that !vote completely. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:49, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• Who? It is in Bill Clinton's lede because he admitted it. President Trump did no such thing, and it is pure gossip. Anybody can accuse anybody of anything anytime. If the allegations are ever proven to be true, there would still be an issue of weight. Clinton's sexual misconduct led to his near impeachment, yet there is only one sentence buried in the middle of a very long paragraph. It would be totally undue in President Trump's lede, especially now.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• it is pure gossip. Pure gossip is somebody anonymously starting a rumor on the internet. Pure gossip might be one woman going public with allegations, pinning a target to her own back and adding a ton of stress to her previously peaceful life. Maybe even two women. Keep adding women and at some point you cross a threshold into the territory between pure gossip and court conviction. The threshold number is undefined but it's pretty clear we've crossed it, and I'm fairly certain policy does not prohibit (or require) attributed content in that territory. Argue UNDUE if you like, but calling it "pure gossip" only undermines your argument. And don't argue BLP unless you can point to part of BLP that says BLP-cool content in the body can become BLP-vio when summarized in the lead. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:39, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• No, the number changes nothing. It's still gossip. There has been no conviction, only allegations.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• If there were anything in policy to the effect that presence or absence of a court conviction should figure into our decisions, I suspect you would have linked it by now. If you want to stick to an argument that may be ignored by the closer, I'm sure the Yeses are happy to let you do it. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:07, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• Zigzig20s, now I'm going to question your COMPETENCE on the subject of BLP. Seriously. Your ideas are not coming from that policy. We document f###ing EVERYTHING here, including serious gossip, as long as it's notable enough to be mentioned in RS. Mere garden variety "gossip" is what is pushed only by National Enquirer and such unreliable sources.

By contrast, this content is from ALL the most notable RS that exist. They are serious allegations of sexual misconduct, groping, and even violent forcible rape of a 13-year old minor at a party held by Trump's good friend for many years, Jeffrey Epstein, who was known to provide underage girls for his party-goers. He is a registered sex offender. In 2008, Epstein was convicted of soliciting an underage girl for prostitution, for which he served 13 months in prison.

No, your competence is sadly lacking. You really need to read BLP. ANY KIND of negative information is potential content if it's reported in RS. This is major enough to get two articles here, which are abundantly sourced. You can't brush this off as mere "gossip". Guilt or innocence, and lack of any conviction, are totally irrelevant. We are duty bound to document it. We have done that. It is weighty enough for a sentence in the lead, just like all other biographies where this is a topic. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:47, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Ah, mystery solved. Zigzig20s is applying WP:BLPCRIME while ignoring (or forgetting) its first sentence. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:20, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that first sentence:

"This section (WP:BLPCRIME) applies to individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by WP:WELLKNOWN."

We treat private persons with kid gloves, but those gloves come off when dealing with public persons, and the higher up, the more vulnerable they get. They have chosen to let their lives be examined and publicized in embarrassingly close detail, and we must document how RS report it. Exposure comes with their job, and documentation comes with ours. The President of the USA gets ZERO special protection. On the contrary, he gets the least protection of all, and that has always been the case with every President, both at Wikipedia and in real life. We follow policy closely, but boldly. We don't keep negative information out of his article because someone doesn't like it or vague wikilawyering, and most of the objections and !votes fall in the category and must be discounted by the closer.

If a subject is worth a whole section (and in this case at least two articles!), it deserves mention in the lead. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:58, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Give me a break, you can continue to bombast these obviously libelous accusations to such a degree where it sounds like it came from the lips of Walter Cronkite himself, but they are still at the end of the day unproven allegations with no merit in the court of law and therefor no merit to be included in this article. I have no idea why you'd think including these into the lede is such a grand idea; legitimately I do not. You're pushing for this, and even the mental illness malarkey, solely on RS alone without any evidence of wrongdoing provided by the justice system. Last I checked people were innocent before proven guilty but not on Wikipedia it seems, not when Donald Trump is concerned no no no. You are right about one thing, the President gets the least protection of all. THIS Presidents gets the LEAST protection; everyone else we suddenly become sane enough to not include equally as false accusations about Kenya or Bush doing 9/11. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 22:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Wow! 70.44.154.16, your incompetence to edit here is showing. Actually we DO base content "solely on RS alone", and often "without any evidence". That is our job. You don't seem to understand our policies very well. The following replies by EvergreenFir and Mandruss are pretty good. I suggest you learn from them. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:25, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a court of law, though. If reliable sources widely report something, we should give it due coverage in our encyclopedia article. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:35, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPCRIME, "innocent until proven guilty" does not apply to public figures. We go by Wikipedia content policy, whether it pleases you or not. If you wish to propose a change to policy, this is the wrong place to do it. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

No - Innocent until proven guilty as Zigzig20s has said. It is pure conjecture and gossip. I'm sure many Wikipedians would like to see that installed into the President Trump Wikipedia article solely to discredit him, no doubt it will happen sooner or later. ThePlane11 (talk) 06:02, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

You seem unaware that policy-free !votes are ignored by the closer and therefore have no effect on the outcome. Please cite specific parts of Wikipedia policy to support your !vote. As stated above multiple times, policy specifically precludes "innocent until proven guilty" reasoning for public figures. Further, related content is already installed into the President Trump Wikipedia article, in this subsection, and there is no proposal to remove it, so you also seem to have missed the whole point of this RfC. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:14, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Consensus #21 (Mental Health)

I don't think this consensus reflects the discussion it links, and erects to high a barrier around posting. Should Trump experience an ongoing degradation of his mental facilities, we would not see public confirmation from a doctor with access. On the contrary; Doctor shopping would be used to find a favorable opinion whilst any confirmation would be stifled by doctor-patient confidentiality (see Reagan). I am not suggesting that we post now, but when documented actions by the president raise concerns of degradation in neutral reliable sources, we would be obligated to post. Note that I googled for this and currently found only left-slanted, speculative or report-on-a-report sources as yet. GCG (talk) 17:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

The only chance that could be included is if the doctor that examined him in person made statements explicitly to that effect. Even then I think it would be a rather tough sell. PackMecEng (talk) 17:27, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Wait until we have something real to discuss. Consensuses are easy enough to change when the need is clear, and we wouldn't be "obligated to post" "today". ―Mandruss ☎ 18:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Definitely wait. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:09, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

We are almost certainly not going to get anything reliably sourced that we can say about his mental health. What we can do is report his words and his actions, and let people draw their own conclusions. --MelanieN (talk) 01:12, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

What does "Consensus #21 (Mental Health)" mean? Is there a discussion somewhere numbered #21 or something? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:17, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

[8] O3000 (talk) 01:22, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@Objective3000: Ah, thanks.

Many Americans (and I assume non-Americans) are concerned about Trump's mental health; it's been covered countless times by dozens/hundreds of reliable sources over an extended period of time. It's a legitimate sub-topic worthy of inclusion in this article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:35, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Most Republicans sincerely think most Democrats are out of their fucking minds, and vice versa. Perhaps that reality might be factoring into the present conversation. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:39, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

This is a really hairy subject. I am glad this is under discussion in the press and even Congress. But IMO, armchair analyses of living persons don’t belong in an encyclopedia. In any case, you won’t gain consensus. O3000 (talk) 01:46, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I read this section yesterday and mentally put myself down as a definite No for changing the current consensus. Then I read this front page New York Times article this morning and started to question that. I'm currently leaning toward the opinion that it is possible to talk about the mental fitness debate without engaging in "armchair diagnosis" rightly eschewed by Consensus #21. I think it may be possible to craft a neutral sentence or two in the article's body acknowledging that the debate exists, perhaps including a summary of the White House's rebuttals if appropriate. Part of what pushed me to this position was the existence of the last two paragraphs of Barry Goldwater#U.S. presidential_campaign, 1964 that contain a summary of the events leading to the Goldwater rule (an article that incidentally talks as much about Donald Trump as Barry Goldwater). Anyway my gut tells me (and sources seem to agree) that there is something "unprecedented" going on today that is as big or bigger than the Goldwater thing. ~Awilley (talk) 17:13, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

On the other hand, the Goldwater thing was 53 years ago, he wasn't a sitting president, and he had been dead for 8 years when that content was first added. This is "unprecedented" in more ways than one. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:41, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Awilley. There is abundant RS and professional coverage of the subject to deserve short mention, even a short section (well, actually a separate article, there really is that much). -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:29, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@Mandruss, I agree that BLP is more of a concern here than with Goldwater, and we certainly should not give it the kind of treatment the Goldwater article currently does (quoting at length specific claims, etc.). The first sentence of the NYTimes article linked above covers most of what I think should be said at this point:

"President Trump, whose sometimes erratic behavior in office has generated an unprecedented debate about his mental health, declared on Saturday that he was perfectly sane and accused his critics of raising questions to score political points."

(Note this isn't a proposal for an actual wording.)

@BullRangifer, I think a short section would be overkill. ~Awilley (talk) 20:56, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

This BLP has a Section Donald_Trump#Health. It doesn’t include his sniffling during the presidential debates, and concomitant speculation that he has a drug habit. We can include mental health stuff in this section when the White House issues an actual medical report saying whether there’s a mental health issue. Until something like that happens, it’s premature in this article, IMHO. Trump is not a doctor. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:32, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, I have always argued against inclusion of anything related to armchair analyses. But, I think there is a point where some commentary might be warranted; and that point is well short of a medical report from the WH. O3000 (talk) 22:00, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Where else would a medical report about this come from? Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:05, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

From a doctor. We need to keep in mind whether the Goldwater rule is about ethics or reliability if something that violates is considered for inclusion. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:09, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Where would a doctor’s medical report about this come from, other than from the White House? If you mean from a doctor who’s never spoken with him and never tested him, I can only say that Trump would have to be extremely bonkers (and his White House doctors extremely negligent) for such a report to have any chance of being credible. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:13, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

You don’t need a medical report to mention concerns if those concerns are heavily documented in RS and originate from both sides of the aisle. As Awilley says, any addition would have to be neutral. I fear we wouldn’t see a medical report from the WH if he were swinging from the branches of the Jackson Magnolia. O3000 (talk) 22:17, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

There is no consensus regarding inclusion of material about Trump's psychology and personality, neither for or against. I can't really see any policy-based reasons not to include such material, as the reliable sources covering this material exist in enormous quantity and are of high quality in many, many cases, and as the issue is clearly of great importance (from current affairs, historical and encyclopedic perspectives) as it directly impacts how the United States is governed. We have entire articles devoted to the mental health of other politicians, and the US government has itself commissioned reports on the mental health of other contemporary politicians such as Putin, which have been reported on in US media.

The claim that those experts commenting on his mental health "must" have examined him personally is nonsensical and wrong, and fundamentally misunderstands Wikipedia's nature. A recommendation (from a private association) to examine someone personally may be relevant to an individual health care professional within a specific country and within a specific profession in that country and in the context of providing healthcare. Wikipedia however is based on the coverage in reliable sources, and such a recommendation has no bearing on whether we can include reliably sourced (and relevant/WP:DUE etc.) material about Trump's psychology here. Many very solid observations can and have been made by reputable experts based on publicly available material relating to Trump, just as entire books have been written about other politicians' psychology/personality/health by experts who never met them personally.

The issue of Trump's psychology/personality is much greater than the opinions of one private association in one country about what they believe members of their association should or shouldn't do. It's not like it's illegal, not even within the US, to comment on this issue either – it's discussed in US media on a daily basis. We also don't really need to cite any members of the psychiatric association in question, because there are plenty of competent experts in other professions (e.g. psychology) and based in other countries who have commented on the same issue, and for whom any Goldwater rule (which isn't really a "rule" but one association's opinion of dubious relevance to this case) in the US is utterly irrelevant. The conclusion must be that we should include such material in the article. --Tataral (talk) 22:41, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• What would be included, if that happens, is speculation (given the absence of an investigation whose results are made public) and while we usually wouldn't include speculation, in this case we're dealing with speculation reported on extensively by reliable sources--and the speculation that I know of isn't by some jackass off the street, but by someone with a medical degree who reported on her thoughts in an important forum. So no, this is not something that we can only talk about if some licensed therapists has a session with the president: it is not the White House that controls the narrative, but reliable sources and editorial consensus. PS Jackson has a magnolia? He truly is an important figure in the WH, isn't he. Drmies (talk) 22:47, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I am not suggesting that Wikipedia include nothing about Trump’s alleged mental derangement. However, it should go where stuff like this typically goes, and that’s there. I see nothing about Trump there now, and I’d like to see it developed there before we consider summarizing it here (actually, I guess a proper summary of nothing is nothing). Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:55, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Drmies, I’ve started a discussion at Talk:Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:40, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I don’t think that’s the proper venue as it presupposes that the 25th is a remedy or that any remedy is required. O3000 (talk) 23:52, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Yesterday’s NYT Article was not idle chit-chat; it mentioned the 25th Amendment multiple times. If Trump is swinging around in the Jackson Magnolia unbeknownst to the Physician to the President and the White House Medical Unit, that doesn’t stop Congress from invoking the 25th. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

OK--but the possible applicability of the 25th doesn't preclude the matter from being discussed and possible included here, of course (I know I'm not telling you anything new). BTW I have very limited interest in the subject matter, but happened to see Tataral's edit go by (they have a cool username, which reminds me of a weird band I like)--still I appreciate the ping. Gotta go--AFV just started! Drmies (talk) 00:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Observe Alfonso Ribeiro carefully for mental stability issues! Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I have been consistently opposed to including anything about mental health in this article because it would be basically speculation. However, I think a very general sentence similar to the NYT one that Awilley quoted above might be OK in the "health" section. BTW the "Goldwater rule" is intended as an ethical guideline for doctors, not for the general public. It may limit what doctors can say; it does not limit what we can say. --MelanieN (talk) 00:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

• [9].Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:24, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Good link. Can Wikipedia wait? Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:29, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I think we can wait a bit.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, we can wait, but not much longer. We have long since passed critical mass on this subject. There's enough very RS stuff to make a nice little article. Suppression is an NPOV violation that can only exist so long without damaging the project. Therefore, short mention here is needed, so start thinking in that direction. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:24, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Do you feel like suppression is stopping you from including it now at Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution? Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:30, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that article is an appropriate place for speculation about his mental health. It could be used to describe attempts (if genuine and coming from people who are actually in a position to do it) to invoke the amendment. --MelanieN (talk) 01:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree that it should only be mentioned there as it relates to the subject of the 25th. In that regard, there are plenty of RS which do discuss it in that context, so it should be possible to include something there, at least a section, since incapacity (mental health issues qualify) is a significant condition for invoking the 25th.

BTW, "speculation" is an irrelevant concept at Wikipedia, including BLPs, if it's well-sourced. I really do get tired of that argument, because it's not based on policy. We are literally required to document everything (with a small caveat). Speculation, rumor, conspiracy, and nonsense are all unfortunate parts of the sum total of human knowledge. If it gets covered in RS, it's potential fair game. It's no guarantee, but that gets it on the target for possible inclusion. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Let's hope we don't see a repeat of his other medical report(s).[10][11][12][13] Of course Trump wouldn't allow any report that's negative, and the doctor wouldn't dare cross him. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:57, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

What if the doctor’s not just unethical, but also deranged??? Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:32, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Which is exactly why we should not report diagnoses from armchair doctors; but instead talk to concerns voiced widely in RS. When and if the time is right. O3000 (talk) 01:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

The concerns voiced widely at the moment are by armchair doctors. PackMecEng (talk) 01:45, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

You have a good point. But, many of the concerns are voiced by those with expertise in history, politics, and government, and about the dangers presented. Should they be ignored? O3000 (talk) 01:49, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

If they have no hands of experience examining the subject, yes they should be ignored. Otherwise it is just vague, mostly partisan, opining and guessing. I am not sure of a neutral and BLP compliant way to add such speculation. PackMecEng (talk) 02:02, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Again, I am adamantly opposed to medical diagnoses from armchair doctors. I am only talking about brief mention of concerns that appear in growing numbers of RS originating from both sides of the aisle. This can be stated neutrally. O3000 (talk) 02:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I would be happy to try and work out a sentence here for the health section, I still have my previous concerns though. PackMecEng (talk) 02:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I can't believe those of you editors in favor of this proposal who chastised me for violations of BLP policy would ever consider commenting on Trump's mental health. You are going to need a determination from a medical examining board, who has access to his medical records, to make any such comments.Phmoreno (talk) 01:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Ph, this is the same misunderstanding of WP policy that's gotten you a lot of criticism on other topics here. As editors, we don't adjudicate such issues like a jury that hears expert witnesses. We reflect the narratives of Reliable Source references. There's now widespread mainstream discussion of POTUS' cognitive and emotional well-being. SPECIFICO talk 02:21, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Medical facts, not opinions, for mental health comments. Don't confuse mental health with personality traits.Phmoreno (talk) 02:35, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

We base our content on RS, right or wrong, not medical authorities or courts. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

"We base our content on RS, right or wrong, not medical authorities or courts." You're legitimately mad if you actually believe this, according to you a completely inaccurate and false story from an outlet like CNN outweighs a factual report by medical professionals and actual courts of law. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 21:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

No, we would likely document them all. See my comment above. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:33, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

• This discussion is based on farcical premises. First, the word "speculation" appears 11 times above. Second, we are told that this matter is so important WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS that factual confirmation is not necessary, so long as it is being mentioned by non-experts in "reliable sources".

Further, these claims are nonspecific, non-medical, hypothetical crystal balling coming from Trump's opponents, whether of the left or the nevertrumper sort.

Finally, the proposed materialon derangement and unfitness for office actually has its own special term in defamation law; defamation per se (which states):

Most states recognize that some categories of statements are considered to be defamatory per se, such that people making a defamation claim for these statements do not need to prove that the statement was defamatory.

In an action for defamation per se, the law recognizes that certain false statements are so damaging that they create a presumption of injury to the plaintiff's reputation, allowing a defamation case to proceed to verdict with no actual proof of damages. Although laws vary by state, and not all states recognize defamation per se, there are four general categories of false statement that typically support a per se action:

1. accusing someone of a crime;
2. alleging that someone has a foul or loathsome disease;
3. adversely reflecting on a person's fitness to conduct their business or trade; and
4. imputing serious sexual misconduct.

Obviously there is no more need or justification for repeating this stuff in an encyclopedia article just because rumor and wishful thinking on the topic is widespread. If and when a verifiable fact occurs like a legal action or a medical emergency, we can report that. Until then, we have no business reporting rumors simply because they are repeated in media echo chambers. μηδείς (talk) 05:22, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

You've been here since 2010 and you're making legal threats? You seriously don't understand how this works, do you. We cite RS. Under US laws, even if what we wrote were libelous, and citing a source making a libelous claim does not make us guilty of libel, we are protected by Barrett v. Rosenthal, which protects those who repeat claims found on the internet, even if they are libelous, but it never gets that far here.

Instead we're dealing with opinions and statements covered by the First Amendment in RS, and we can freely cite them without any risk of breaking any law. Even if Trump were to try and sue Wikipedia, or editors personally, his SLAPP suits are nothing to be feared. If we followed your opinions above, editing here would ground to a halt on many articles.

Likewise in society at large. The numerous articles and commentary on this subject are made by often well-known top professionals in medicine, psychiatry, journalism, politics, etc. None of them are trying to protect themselves from defamation lawsuits when they make these statements, because they are not breaking the law. The First Amendment covers them, and, because Trump is a public person, it would be nearly impossible for him to win a defamation case.

Study that subject. Public persons, and especially a sitting president, are totally powerless in the face of defamation. Those who are wise and truly great totally ignore such things. Trump, OTOH, is thin-skinned and takes slights personally. Not wise.

Now drop the LEGAL THREATS and stop trying to intimidate editors. It creates a chilling atmosphere. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh c'mon. There's no legal threat here. He's just saying it could be defamatory or something like that. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

You've been here since 2005 and you still haven't read the part of WP:LEGAL where it says A discussion as to whether material is libelous is not a legal threat. Wikipedia's policy on defamation is to delete libelous material as soon as it is identified? You seriously don't understand how this works, do you. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:53, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I was actually thinking about mentioning the same thing about defamation, because making unfounded non-medical assessments that someone is diseased is treated severely by the law. It’s not a legal threat, just a fact about how the law treats such gossip. And WP:BLP similarly states, “Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject.“ The only part of this story that qualifies so far is the bit about the 25th Amendment, and even that’s premature. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:59, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I understand it, but the only reason for bringing it up served to intimidate editors. It was uncalled for. There has been no danger of violating policy. We're talking about allegations, claims, opinions, etc. found in RS, not uncited opinions. This is all covered by the First Amendment and policy here. When creating BLP content we are very careful how we do it. Why bring up defamation? -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Because defamation is an exception to the First Amendment, and it’s one thing for the press to print gossip but quite another for people who are not journalists to repeat it. Moreover, it’s important to understand the seriousness of saying without proof that a person is diseased or may be diseased. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:09, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's a serious matter, but as explained above, we are covered by BvR, 1st Amendment, and by how we treat BLP-related content. We cite it. We don't state it in Wikipedia's voice. We also attribute it. If the subject were to sue, they would have to sue the person who wrote the original article. We cannot be held liable. A public person would likely not sue because it's nearly impossible to win a defamation case in the USA. In England it's a different matter.

All this is assuming it's defamatory material, but it's not, and the authors are not at all concerned. Why are we making a big deal when they are not? -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:18, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

We don’t print everything that the NYT thinks is fit to print, not even 1%. We ought to wait until a doctor who examines the BLP subject has something to say about it, and that will be very soon according to VM’s link above Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:27, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

...the authors are not at all concerned. Why are we making a big deal when they are not? You might as well say we should be able to use any image we see on a website, particularly if it's seen on multiple sites. If the copyright holder isn't suing any of those sites, why would they sue us? Why should we apply a much higher standard than the rest of the world? For better or worse, Wikipedia doesn't use reasoning like that. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:20, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikinews

I mentioned this in passing somewhere else on this page but maybe it might be worth repeating. A few people who get so much media attention that at times you could write full-length books on several individual months of their lives, like Trump, tend to create situations here where during the height of the popular discussion articles about them and related topics here get huge in content and number of references, and then cut down by removing or relocating material. In the process of all that, a lot of the material that people spend their limited volunteer time to add here gets reduced or removed altogether. Alternatively, over at wikinews, if for instance some editors collaborated over there for a daily POTUS or White House or Washington article or section, those articles would remain intact and that material more readily available into the long term despite any future cutbacks here. Just an idea, anyway. John Carter (talk) 20:37, 6 January 2018 (UTC) John Carter (talk) 20:37, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, but the question is who's up for it. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to take from Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 139#Straw poll on the current view of WP:NOT#NEWS, as there was "no clear consensus", but it's recent and relevant to your comments. Less than six weeks ago this RfC concluded that "there seems to be a near-unanimous consensus that Wikinews is effectively dead and sending our readers to such a project will be a dis-service." ―Mandruss ☎ 23:39, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

That is the point. Wikinews is dead and not overcrowded. Editors here could easily help out there, especially with such a delicate topic, instead of having their work torn to bits here. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

You hope to resurrect Wikinews? ―Mandruss ☎ 00:11, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

"...topics here get huge in content and number of references, and then cut down by removing or relocating material. In the process of all that, a lot of the material that people spend their limited volunteer time to add here gets reduced or removed altogether."

That's a huge violation of WP:PRESERVE. That should not happen. We fill an article until it bursts, and then we spinoff content into sub-articles. We're here to build, not break down. That means we try to make Wikipedia bigger. It's bytes, not paper. We have an assignment from Jimbo: Document the "sum total of human knowledge". Go for it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

"Sum total of human knowledge" is a bit vague, don't you think? I'm not aware that Jimbo has ever said precisely what he meant by that, and he would be the last to say he's the ultimate authority around here anyway. It was an opinion from an above-average Wikipedia editor.
Taking the phrase literally—"anything any human has ever known, no matter how minute or mundane"—there is not enough server storage on the planet. Assuming you don't take it so literally, where to draw the line is a matter of wide disagreement. So the phrase was a rhetorical device that isn't particularly useful in discussions like this. To assert that something is yellow is pointless if there is wide disagreement on the definition of yellow.
Per WP:ONUS, etc, PRESERVE is not meant to protect anything that some editors think should be in articles, even if it otherwise passes the letter of content policy. If consensus is to break down, we properly break down. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:43, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I obviously don't take it that far ("no matter how minute or mundane"). It must receive RS coverage enough for inclusion (notability is not a factor for inclusion). Yes, we do often need to tweak and break down content, but we should seek to improve and save, and move into sub-articles if necessary. Outright deletion of the hard, good faith, efforts of editors creates ill will and loss of motivation. We lose good editors that way. They have followed all policies and guidelines, their work has been accepted, and then it gets trashed by someone who often wasn't even involved in the creation process at the article. That is so wrong. All content that is properly sourced should be treated with care. I have sometimes saved content by moving it to a more appropriate article. That's a good option if an article develops in another direction and the content no longer is a good fit. Treat proper content with care, and respect the hard work of other editors. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:35, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Content in wikipedia must also be encyclopedic. A lot of material regarding current events and particularly current controversies, particularly the day to day stuff, is sometimes at best dubiously encyclopedic. Certainly the sometimes intense battles for mention in the lede are at best dubiously useful in both the long term and the short term. And, again, I refer to the previously mentioned TomKat article which seems to have been trimmed of a great deal of material before the final eventual merge back into Tom Cruise. In the heat of the moment, particularly for topics that stimulate strong emotional responses from all sides, it can be really hard to tell what material will really finally wind up being really encyclopedic. A lot of the current events material really, ultimately, often winds up being thought to not be encyclopedic. And all that doesn't even take into account whether the sometimes random or emotionally inspired spinout articles that are created as opposed to others ultimately lead to remotely balanced and neutral coverage. Particularly for topics which are still current, like living people, where the very strong likelihood of additional, possibly more important, information being generated later may have to be addressed in a way which is ultimately reduce the amount of space to other topics. This is an encyclopedia and the primary purpose is to summarize material, not to reproduce it in toto. That sort of thing is more appropriate for books, which presumably would include effective books, like collections of news articles.

Ultimately, I cannot see us ultimately keeping content here in the quantity that would equate the theoretically possible monthly books on Trump I mentioned earlier might contain. And on some topics, like this one, there does seem to me to be a bit of a presupposition that an RfC today will necessarily be binding after still further developments. That never happens. The best way to preserve the non-summarized detailed information on any widely covered topic is to preserve it in a place where such information is expected to be preserved, like newspaper archives, rather than in the history of a wikipedia page which in the future may well become like TomKat an invisible redirect which many people won't even know was a separate article in the first place. John Carter (talk) 19:01, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 January 2018

Change the opening paragraphs of this article to stipulate that Donald Trump won the American Presidential race in 2016, "securing 304 votes in the electoral college, but losing the popular vote by 2,865,075 votes" This is reasonable and accurate, providing context for the below information, whilst also streamlining information for visitors to Wikipedia, who may be visiting this page for this information. 2401:7000:B078:E400:7092:7A4:3C5D:F6A9 (talk) 01:03, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.

This article is Trump’s bio. Stats like this would better fit in an article about his presidency or election. (You can find links to these articles in the infobox at the upper-right of the article.) However, the text in the leads of all of the articles has been painfully agreed upon and any chance that you could change consensus to your text is highly unlikely. O3000 (talk) 01:16, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. We had endless discussions about this for months after the election and his inauguration - whether to include the numbers in the lede, whether to point out in the lede that he failed to win the popular vote. The eventual conclusion was to simply say in the lede that he won, and leave all those details for the article itself. That may not have been a perfect conclusion, but at least it did stop the arguing - which would certainly start up again, very vigorously, if we were to do if you suggest. --MelanieN (talk) 01:22, 7 January 2018 (UTC)