Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 48

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

→

Archive 55

Bankrupt businesses "undue for lead"

@JFG: please explain why you think "six of his hotels and casinos were subsequently declared bankrupt" is "undue for lead". zzz (talk) 16:27, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@Signedzzz: The burden is on the includer, not the excluder. Let's start with why it isn't undue. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:32, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sure: it's too detailed for the lead. By this logic we could add every event in Trump's business career that went wrong, or also things that worked well. Slippery slope. — JFG ^talk 16:35, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) {{ping|Mandruss)) It is 9 words to summarise an important section of the article, for which he is extremely well-known. zzz (talk) 16:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Eminently unconvincing. Fails to respond to JFG's slippery slope argument. Omit per JFG. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:39, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Slippery slope. Ok Ill respond: "No it's not". What are you worried about happening if you allow somehting negative into the first paragraph advertisement? The article already explains that he only went bankrupt because he is so clever and skilled at business, so what are you worried about exactly? zzz (talk) 16:45, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Excessive detail for the lead, even if it weren't already long. Do I look worried? ―Mandruss ☎ 16:47, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, you say excessive detail, but it is 9 words to summarise an important section of the article, so that argument is "eminently unconvincing". zzz (talk) 16:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't convinced you. My !vote stands. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:51, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@Mandruss: is correct. It does not belong in the lede. This is a BLP. The lede summarizes the major facets of this man's life. It cannot include everything. The business bankruptcies are included in the main body where they belong. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:59, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

The lead is supposed to summarise the "main body". Why is it undue to mention this section of the article? zzz (talk) 17:03, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Words of wisdom. Only an essay, but a widely accepted one. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

You should read that yourself (5 completely pointless messages from you already, in this thread alone). I am still waiting for a reason why it is undue to mention bankrupcty in a summary of his business career, when that is precisely what he is well-known for. And the article even contains a section about it. zzz (talk) 19:50, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Piling on: leave it out of the lede. The article has dozens of sections; they aren't all summarized in the lede, which is already long. The lede has room for only one paragraph about his business career; due to the limits of a lede it is a very broad-brush summary, reducing a long business career to a few sentences. The fact that some of his businesses did not turn out well is not important enough to include in such a general summary. Those who want more information about his business activities can find it in the article text and in multiple other articles throughout Wikipedia. --MelanieN (talk) 21:16, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Does anyone really expect ONE man to manage HUNDREDS of businesses? Each of his businesses is managed by its own general manager, not by Donald Trump. Donald Trump is the at the top most level. He does not personally manage each of his businesses. As an analogy, Vince McMahon owns WWE, but both RAW and Smackdown has its own general manager. As an analogy, Donald Trump is the president of America. He does not personally manage every state, every American corporation. Those are done by governors and CEOs. Sure a few of his businesses did fail, but not because of his management. It does not belong in the lede. Too trivial to be in the lede.

45.58.82.114 (talk) 02:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

BMI

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

---

There was prior indication that mention of Trump's weight is due in the article. This was removed by JFG on the grounds of "fat-shaming". The current text is factual and was considered pretty relevant during his election. I'm unsure if this actually needs to be discussed owing to prior consensus and long-time inclusion of the section, but noting it here on the talk page. Text in question is:

His BMI, according to his December 2016 visit on Doctor Oz, is just under 30, which is overweight, bordering on obese.

References

Note that "high" means nothing, and the diagnostic criteria are 25-30 overweight, 30+ obese.

Best, Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 12:16, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

@CFCF: FYI this is being discussed above in the #Health/Weight section. — JFG ^talk 14:46, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

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

New health information

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

---

The NY Times has in interview with Trump's physician today. Should the article include more specific information about his therapies? See here.

WASHINGTON — President Trump takes medication for three ailments, including a prostate-related drug to promote hair growth, Mr. Trump’s longtime physician, Dr. Harold N. Bornstein, said in a series of recent interviews.
The other drugs are antibiotics to control rosacea, a common skin problem, and a statin for elevated blood cholesterol and lipids.
Dr. Bornstein, who spoke by telephone in four interviews over the past month, also said that Mr. Trump takes a daily baby aspirin to reduce the risk of a heart attack.

SPECIFICO talk 18:32, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

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

RfC on 5% threshold

You may want to participate in this RfC regarding the inclusion of candidates in election infoboxes. MB298 (talk) 01:50, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Public Life

Should there be a section corresponding section to the Private Life section, describing his non-income, non-family activities ? Public criticism of other public figures comes to mind.

• Arnold Schwarzenegger Responds to Trump's Twitter Slam | Time.com
• We are not enemies. Arnold Schwarzenegger

For the 2016 Republican Party presidential primaries, Schwarzenegger endorsed fellow Republican John Kasich. However, he announced in October that he would not vote for the Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump in the that year's United States presidential election, with this being the first time he did not vote for the Republican candidate since becoming a citizen in 1983.

• "Schwarzenegger calls Kasich the 'Terminator'". New Hampshire Union Leader.
• "Arnold Schwartzenegger Will Not Be Voting For Donald Trump". PEOPLE.com. 2016-10-08. Retrieved 2016-10-09.
• "'I want to punch him': De Niro launches scathing attack on Trump". ABC News. 2016-10-09. Retrieved 2016-10-09.
• "Schwarzenegger, McCain, More Drop Support of Trump". Us Weekly. Retrieved 2016-10-09.

Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 01:08, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Offhand I can't see a place for any of these examples in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 01:37, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Not this particular example itself necessarily, but the category of activities Public. The idea is to encompass all activities of the person, similar to other biographies of living persons. Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 03:41, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

"Politician and president" is redundant

It's redundant to state that he is a "politician, and the 45th President of the United States". The latter implies the former, so simply "and the 45th President of the United States" is adequate, especially since it is the only political office he has sought or held (or is likely to). -Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:59, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

This is the consensus result of extensive discussion. See Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensuses, item 11. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:04, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

That said, this does demonstrate why "politician" should have come before businessman, as it did originally. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:07, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

We understand that you were on the losing end of that consensus. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Maybe so. Doesn't mean I was wrong though. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

There is no right or wrong, only consensus. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:19, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Nonsense. We now know there is right and alternative right. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:21, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm aware of that there was a consensus developed, but I don't see any mention in that discussion of the redundancy, nor of the misleading implication. Articles about previous presidents include both terms for reasons of completeness: Obama was a president but also a senator, Bush was a president but also a governor, etc. It's necessary to allude to their prior political careers in the opening sentence, just like it's necessary to do so with Trump's previous careers. But "president" fully covers Trump's political career, and implying the existence of a political career before it is misleading. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:27, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, he was a presidential candidate at one point, so there is a career, albeit minor. I agree it is rather odd to include it, but the implication of just being a businessman and president is that he bought his way to his position (while that isn't entirely false, I don't think it's suitable wording for Wikipedia). Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 19:34, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

There is no great harm in using "politician," but I agree with user:JasonAQuest that the word is unnecessary, because until this election, that word did not apply to him, except perhaps by energetic stretching of its meaning. DonFB (talk) 23:04, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

The term politician is helpful when the personal has held offices which are not mentioned in the lead - it is a summary. But it is redundant and confusing if the person has held no other offices. This appears to be a tendentious rebuttal of Trump's claim that he was not a politician. If we want to make this point, it should be phrased as "although Trump claims not to be a politician, the fact that he was elected to office makes him one, according to Wikipedia editors." TFD (talk) 03:16, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I totally disagree with the redundancy theory. "Politician" is an occupation, whereas "President of the United States" is a title. Once Trump began campaigning for office (which has done more than once), "politician" became one of his occupations. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:00, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

If it was not redundant, then it would be possible to say he was the president but not a politician. Can you explain to me what additional information the word "politician" provides that is not already conveyed by saying he is the president? TFD (talk) 14:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I would've thought it was obvious, and it has already been explained before (which is why we have "politician" in the lede). Trump has been actively engaged in "politicking" for far longer than he has been in office. The lede of this article used to say Trump is a businessman and chairman and president of the Trump Organization, so was "businessman" redundant too? -- Scjessey (talk) 15:55, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Businessman is not redundant because being CEO of the Trump Organization is not his sole business role. He also ran Miss Universe, is an executive producer on The Apprentice, produced a Broadway play, worked for his father's business, and ran an airline, school, steak business, etc. OTOH he has held no other political positions. TFD (talk) 02:49, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

politician. 1. One experienced in the art or science of government; one actively engaged in conducting the business of a government; one skilled or experienced in politics; statesman. 2. a. One engaged in party politics as a profession or as a means of livelihood. b often disparaging. One primarily interested in political offices or profits derived from them as a source of private gain.
politics. 1. The art or science of government...
statesman. 1. One versed in the principles or art of government; politician...
(Merriam-Webster Unabridged.)

politician. 1. A person who is active in party politics. 2. A seeker or holder of public office, who is more concerned about winning favor or retaining power than about maintaining principles. 3. A person who holds a political office. 4. A person skilled in political government or administration...
party politics. Politics based on strict adherence to the policies and principles of a political party regardless of the public interest; partisan loyalism.
(Dictionary.com.)

Trump isn't reported to be experienced or skilled in the art or science of government; he's conducted government business for two weeks; before his 2015/16 campaign, he had engaged in party politics for four months. Has anyone found a reliable mainstream source that describes him as a "politician"? --Dervorguilla (talk) 21:11, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Of course he is. There are sources all over the internet saying so (example) and your own comment above proves it ("one engaged in party politics as a profession", "a person who is active in party politics", "a seeker or holder of public office", "a person who holds a political office" all apply). -- Scjessey (talk) 21:58, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@Scjessey: You and I agree that Trump is currently "engaged in party politics". Indeed, he's been doing so for nearly two years (out of seventy). But anyone who becomes President (or President-elect) can only have done so by engaging in party politics. Have you found any current (meaning, post-election) reliable source that describes Trump as being a politician and President (or as a politician and President-elect)? --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:18, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

@Dervorguilla: "When Donald Trump took the Oath of Office on Friday, he became America’s first billionaire president. But he isn’t the only billionaire politician in the country." (Forbes), "Trump is a politician who delivers on his promises." (New York Post), "Donald Trump claims he's 'not a politician' and then proves it in 4 words." (The Independent) - these are just a few of the many (I picked these because they are right-of-center sources, rather than left-of-center sources that might be trying to malign Trump). The New York Post is practically Trump's very own newspaper, and even that calls him a politician. We have a long-established consensus on this that went through a lengthy RfC just recently. Do we really need to do all this again so soon? -- Scjessey (talk) 12:51, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

@Scjessey: We don't now! Many thanks. --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:25, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Are the news media personalities politicians since they talk... politics constantly and more than anyone? Politician in the opening sentence seems to be making Wikipedia political (politicians). YahwehSaves (talk) 07:56, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

president is a kind of politician

Just like high school teacher is a kind of educator. Just like university professor is a kind of educator. Just like surgeon is a kind of health worker. Just like nurse is a kind of health worker. Having both politician and president in the same sentence is redundant. President automatically implies politician.

216.165.211.19 (talk) 00:11, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Moratorium on infobox image

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

---

PROPOSED:

A 6-month moratorium on the infobox image. The current infobox image, File:Donald Trump official portrait.jpg, will not be modified or replaced until at least 22 July 2017. If modifications to the image (e.g. cropping or touch-up) are desired for another page, it should be cloned to a new image for that purpose. At some point before that date, we may decide to extend the moratorium for another period of duration to be determined then.

During the moratorium period, new threads about the infobox photo should be collapsed immediately with a link to the consensuses list, preferably indicating the relevant item number, which will include a link to this consensus. If a thread receives replies before it can be collapsed, it should be collapsed anyway. Use {{Cot}} and {{Cob}}, not {{Atop}} and {{Abot}}.

• Support as proposer. Current photo is the product of an enormous amount of editor effort spanning many months, and should be left alone for at least six months, regardless of people's subjective opinions about it. We need return on the investment, and that return is some relief from continuous discussion of that image. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support. We have spent far too much time on this issue and we finally have consensus. I don't think it's likely that consensus will change. Let's not spend any more time on it. --MelanieN (talk) 03:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Agree with Melanie, too much time spent on this. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support. I have watched this page for over a year. The amount of time and effort wasted in debating the image has been colossal. It's been almost as bad as the Kim Jong Un page. A consensus was formed to use the official portrait, and that's what we should do. My only question is: what happens if a new official portrait is released?--Jack Upland (talk) 03:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

  Good question. I feel we should wait until the moratorium expires, spend a (relatively) short time deciding whether to use the new image, and then decide whether to start a new moratorium period. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:28, 22 January 2017 (UTC) - I changed my mind; see following subsection. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:40, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) STRONG support - Consensus on this issue was abundantly clear and way too many people here are trying to directly or indirectly circumvent that consensus because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 03:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Twitbookspacetube, I don't think that's accurate. The reason it keeps coming up is not because people who didn't like the consensus are trying to circumvent it. Now that the official photo is out, the only people I see challenging it are newcomers to the article who are not familiar with the consensus. --MelanieN (talk) 03:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support - The infobox image is one of the least important, most discussed content items in this article. A break from those discussions would be therapeutic.- MrX 03:33, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose – While I agree that too much electronic ink has been consumed in prior image debates, I also firmly believe in a Wikipedia culture of open discourse between editors, therefore I oppose any moratorium. Current policies, page protection level, edit notice and strong consensus to use the official portrait are enough to ensure minimal disruption. — JFG ^talk 06:06, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
• I would have supported, but after reading JFG's argument I oppose. MB298 (talk) 06:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • But if the moratorium is imposed, I support breaking that only if a new official portrait comes out. MB298 (talk) 06:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:CCC policy. "Editors may propose a change to current consensus, especially to raise previously unconsidered circumstances." One such circumstance is the unexpectedly low face-height : image-height ratio, an important detail that we hadn't previously considered (perhaps because most of us aren't professional photographers). Compare the current image -- taken from the official PE Color.jpg (President-Elect Color.jpg?) portrait -- to the subject's less atypically proportioned POTUS profile image. To emphasize: A decision about a particular infobox image is customarily regarded as appropriate for its own RfC. Any preemptive "dead-hand" consensus decided on now would likely end up needlessly angering and driving away at least some of the hopeful contributors who would be arriving here during the proposed 6-month moratorium. --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: As a compromise, if the moratorium is rejected, I would suggest a voluntary agreement where involved editors respond to objections to the image by "Refer to consensus" (or something similar), rather than regurgitating their own opinions. This avoids the endless repetition of opinions every time the same issue is raised. We had moderate success with this at the Kim Jong Un page.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:56, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

  How is that substantially different from this proposal? ―Mandruss ☎ 12:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

  It's different in that it is voluntary, and people have objected to imposing (i.e., enforcing) a moratorium.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:19, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per Dervorguilla. Achieving consensus is not efficient and often requires much time and effort. Consensus can change, and we must not hinder an editor's ability to suggest further revisions to established consensus. Edge3 (talk) 18:03, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

  @Edge3: If you had been involved with the continuous drone of "discussion" about subjective trivia often emphatically asserted as objective truth (I don't recall seeing you around for much of that, although you did pop in for a quick Oppose !vote in the last RfC), you might be as weary as many of the rest of us, and you might have a different perspective. Look into the vast archives on this and you will be amazed at what many editors consider just ever-so-important and worthy of unlimited editor-hours. If this proposal fails, stick around for 6 months and gain some first-hand experience in this area; I'm fairly certain you will switch sides for the next moratorium proposal. (No more WP:BLUDGEON from me, I promise.) ―Mandruss ☎ 18:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@Mandruss: I found 72 edits by Edge3 on Talk:Donald Trump (0.46% of the total edits made to the page). --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

@Dervorguilla: According to that, the first edit was on 19 November 2016, after the majority of what I'm talking about. One apparently had anything to do with the infobox image, and that's the one I mentioned previously. Thanks for confirming my memory. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

@Mandruss: We're in agreement, then, that Edge3 has been here since 19 November 2016 and that he did take part in the discussion -- whereas the editor expressing "STRONG support" for your proposed moratorium has been here since 11 January 2017 and did not. --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Sure, I'll stipulate to that irrelevance. My point was not to disqualify Edge3, as if that were possible. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:07, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

@Mandruss and Dervorguilla: I've never experienced so much scrutiny on my contribution levels! In some odd way, I'm actually quite flattered.

I'm sympathetic to the reasons for this proposal. In fact, I would prefer that we keep the official portrait as stable as possible, and I would express that opinion accordingly during a future RfC. However, as weary as we may be, we must remember that we do not control the conversation, no matter how experienced or invested we are in the page. We must be open to have our ideas challenged and discussed. Edge3 (talk) 02:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

None of us has unlimited time to devote to this article. I have to wonder what the article would be like today if we hadn't spent all that time obsessing over completely subjective trivial details of infobox images. I have to wonder how much better informed editors would be about Wikipedia policy and guideline, if they had used that time to learn about it. Yes, we can decide to "control the conversation" in certain exceptional situations, in the interest of the article and the project. We can decide that, while consensus can change, it doesn't necessarily need to change right now. This is what WP:IAR was created for. Note that options 3 and 5 do not shut down discussion completely, they simply limit its scope. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:28, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• Strong OPPOSE - just why oh why is there such a not waiting for the actual official portrait to show up ??? First FIX THE KNOWN PROBLEMS with this one The Official Portrait section above mentions the data about it is simply misentered, in particular the sourcing was not recorded and the copyright information was whiffy. Second, CHANGE WHEN CHANGE IS DUE. As this photo is the PE (President-Elect) placeholder, the official portrait is expected to appear next month. When something happens it will get submitted and we'll figure it out then so I just see no point to announcing a 6-month hold at this time. Markbassett (talk) 04:57, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

  1. Please don't shout, per WP:SHOUT. 2. Most of your concerns are addressed by the following subsection. 3. I just see no point to announcing a 6-month hold at this time. The point to it is to prevent discussion about things like "I hate that blue White House", "His face is too red, we have to fix that per NPOV!!! Right NOW!!! This article is controlled by Trump-haters!!", and "Hey how about this picture I took? I think it's better than the one we're using now, what do others think?" For no more than 6 months unless we decide to renew the moratorium. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

The known problems obvioulsy have not been fixed, I suspect this did not understand the image flaws. And again, since the official portrait issue is expected in February or March there seems just yet again a hurried rush to something. Eh, as I said - when the next thing happens we shall take it to TALK and we'll figure it out then, and so all this is pointless to propose. Markbassett (talk) 01:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

@Markbassett: My understanding is that the "known problems" are limited to the file page at Commons. If that needs fixing, that would not be precluded by this moratorium as it would not change the image in any way. That should be addressed at Commons, on the file's talk page. The legitimacy of the current image is not in doubt, as it is identical to that at https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/president-trump. Sure, any file page problems should be fixed, and that has nothing to do with this proposal.
Again, even if we get a new portrait in February or March, there will still be an endless succession of discussion about other things about the infobox image (modification of, replacement of) in the interim, and that is what this proposal hopes to prevent. Avoiding an unjustifiable time sink is hardly pointless, since, as I've said, that discussion diverts and distracts from more important things. If I'm wrong about the endless succession, despite the compelling historical evidence that I'm right, the moratorium will have no effect and therefore does no harm. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Mark, what is your evidence that a new portrait - an actual, official presidential portrait to hang in schools and government offices - is going to come out in February or March? --MelanieN (talk) 16:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

MelanieN - e.g. article on official portrait expected to appear next month. For the physical portrait to actually get displayed in the federal buildings has that estimate for the GPO to produce and distribute physical items and to become an actual fact of 'official portraits' on display. That would be when we'll have a fact instead of speculation. Whether it's this one of then President Elect with a photoshopped whitehouse backdrop and fake flag versus now he can get one from within the Oval Office ? We'll find out in a bit. And at that point - or when anything else happens - it's going to TALK and get addressed then not wait for months. Markbassett (talk) 05:24, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Mandruss - In your prior post you said the known concerns were already addressed by the following subsections below, and I pointed out factually 'not been fixed'. (Discussions not fixes and prior to my post not about the problems so ... just not any connection I could see) The other bits (90%) about red face or NPOV or other were unrelated to that or any prior talk here, so I suspected you were not talking the same issues. The RFC wasn't stated to be over curtailing appearance discussions of specific kinds, that would seem a different RFC and perhaps this one has mutated enough to need a restatement and retry if you want one that includes say red face or new portraits, or perhaps should starting a second one about the topics occurring in discussion that were not part of the RFC as stated. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:13, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. Look, I understand the thought behind this. I'm sure on this talk page even the slightest change gets run through cycle after cycle of debate. I say that not just because I recognize the polarizing effect of this man as a topic, but also because I get bot noticed back here every few weeks! I can appreciate that, after finally settling on a consensus that took far too long for one isolated issue, you might want to cement it in such a way as to free up more time for other editorial tasks. The problem is, the solution suggested really does not jive with conventional policy on how WP:consensus works on this project. And we're not talking about an insignificant article here. This man occupies arguably the most powerful position of authority, ever, and he's a deep social phenomena in his own right, I don't think it is an exaggeration to say, no matter how you feel about him. So experimenting with basic process which allows us to continually re-evaluate the accuracy and appropriateness of our content is not really well-advised in this space. If someone tries to edit the article in violation of consensus, take them to n admin or a noticeboard as you would in any such case. And remember that it is usually considered WP:disruptive to keep launching the same discussion if there is a clear consensus; new discussions can be occasionally opened, but it's usually a good idea to wait at least a few weeks or months for something as non-time-senstive/not susceptible to new developments as the question of an infobox image. But trying to impose a moratorium of half a year on a change--to an article that may have dozens upon dozens of new editors in that time--is not realistic or consistent with the approach to consensus this community employs. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

New official portraits

This is an important aspect that I overlooked, and it should be clearly nailed down in case the moratorium proposal passes. Please say what to do if a new portrait appears at whitehouse.gov. This still won't cover every conceivable situation and question, but it would be unproductive to try to do so. Opposers above can !vote here without implying support for the moratorium. Pinging those who have already !voted above. @MelanieN, SW3 5DL, Jack Upland, Twitbookspacetube, MrX, JFG, MB298, and Dervorguilla:

1 - Ignore any new official images; forever use the image linked above.
2 - Install the new official image without discussion.
3 - Exempt the new official image from the moratorium and decide whether to use it.
4 - Wait until the moratorium expires. Then install the new official image without discussion.
5 - Wait until the moratorium expires. Then decide whether to use the new official image. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• 2 - I feel that any portrait good enough for the United States Government on the White House webpage should be good enough for Wikipedia, so no discussion is needed. I could live with 3 as a compromise. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
• 3 - Swayed by JFG below. I disagree with What if a non-official photographer creates and freely releases a better-quality portrait? - I still think U.S. Government quality should be good enough, and the continual desire to get something just a little better (always very subjective) is a large part of the problem this proposal aims to solve. "The better is the enemy of the good" is clearly demonstrated by this issue. But that's a separate question that does not need to be answered here. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
• 2 - after definite confirmation that the photo is officially official, the consensus automatically would shift to using that officially official photo. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 11:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
• 2 ...probably shift... one could apply BRD if there was an issue. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:53, 22 January 2017 (UTC).
  
• 3 – We have no idea what they may come up with. What if they decide Trump's oil painting is the official portrait?[1][2] What if they release multiple pictures as equally official? What if a non-official photographer creates and freely releases a better-quality portrait? What if we need to crop the portrait to appropriate proportions for various articles? We don't have a magical crystal ball. I'm against a moratorium, but if that comes to pass then I'm even more against blindly applying any new picture that is released. — JFG ^talk 14:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
• 3 - MrX 15:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
• 3 but ONLY if the new portrait is official - particularly if it replaces the original one as the official portrait. (Not just any picture posted on the White House website is the "official portrait.") Responding to JFG's questions: What if a non-official photographer creates and freely releases a better-quality portrait? Irrelevant; shut those discussions down. "This other picture is better" has been the whole basis of the interminable arguments up to now. That's exactly why we are calling for a moratorium. What if we need to crop the portrait to appropriate proportions for various articles? IMO we can use only the official portrait as-is. If cropped or prettied-up pictures are used for other articles, that's up to consensus at those articles. But at this article, we use the official portrait. --MelanieN (talk) 15:32, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

  (Not just any picture posted on the White House website is the "official portrait.") - Perhaps we can assume that https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/president-trump will always show one and only one portrait-like photo, and agree that that's close enough for our purposes. If not, we'll be spending almost as much time debating whether this new image, that somebody turned up on some obscure whitehouse.gov page, qualifies as "official" or not. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• 3 but only if the new portrait really is official per MelanieN. The usual on Wikipedia is to use the official portrait. Also the official is copyright free for us, so that's another important reason. Thanks to Mandruss for thinking of this. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

N.B. The official photo is the one that goes to all the courts and agencies in the federal government. That is the one we should use. It does not change for the entire 4 or 8 years. Obama's stayed the same, as did all the other presidents' photos. It's way to costly to keep taking photos. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:21, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Good point. It usually is the one that was taken when they assumed office. That suggests that the question of a "new official picture" will not come up and this discussion is moot. (This practice has the added benefit of making them look youthful; presidents all seem to age significantly/turn gray during their years in office.) Four or eight years of Trump glowering at us from every wall? It almost makes me sympathetic to the argument for a smiling picture. --MelanieN (talk) 20:28, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

If the White House PR department determines that the glower doesn't play well with the public, they will change the official photo to one of a kinder and gentler Donald Trump, guaranteed. If you don't think we should consider the smiler in that scenario because it wasn't first, !vote 1. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• 3 — it makes no sense to ignore a new portrait or to blindly apply it.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:46, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
• 3, no reason to ignore superior image. MB298 (talk) 21:28, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
• 3, as necessarily implied by my comment in the 'Proposed Moratorium' subsection. --Dervorguilla (talk) 23:58, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Based on Markbasset's link above, the "official portrait" is currently being printed and will be distributed to thousands of government offices in late February or early March. That portrait, whatever it is, should be the one we use in the infobox. Whoever first gets confirmation of that portrait (which will presumably be Public Domain) should upload it and propose it here for the infobox. I presume there will be quick agreement to use it. --MelanieN (talk) 20:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

The futility of extended infobox image discussions

• Differences in aesthetic taste. What looks "horrendous" to editor A often looks just fine to editor B. I happen to feel that, to be a proper portrait, an image should be close to the aspect ratio of an 8x10 photo (0.8). That is a product of my age and probably my geographic location. (Our current photo has an aspect ratio of 0.8.) I also have my subjective opinions about how portraits should be cropped, and I don't like to fill 60% of the frame with the subject's head. Others will disagree on these and other aesthetic points, and none of us is right or wrong. Some may agree with me about what makes a proper portrait, while saying that Trump's infobox photo does not need to be a proper portrait.
• Differences in display devices. Color, contrast, and brightness are not standardized across all devices, so we are not all seeing the same thing. Skin tone often seems too red on device A but perfect on device B. If we correct it for device A, the tint is now too far toward the green (the skin tone seems unnaturally brown or yellow) on device B (and we won't know that unless there happens to be an editor around using device B). Thus, there is no universal "best" and it is a fool's errand to try to achieve it. If we could assemble a group of editors using a wide range of devices, and spend a month tweaking and discussing, we might be able to produce something approximating a "best compromise" for a single image, which would not be perfectly optimized for any device. But how practical is that? Is the benefit worth the cost?
• Psychological differences in perception. The previous image was a prime example. Many editors saw a frown that made the subject look bad; others saw a serious and sober expression. Regrettably, too many editors felt their perception was absolute truth, and that will always be the case.

All of these variations exist among our reader base, and it is unreasonable to assume that a small group of 20 or so editors could be representative of that base. This is why about 80% of the time spent debating infobox images is wasted in my view. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:01, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Added to this:

• Trump is very controversial. As a result some editors are always convinced the choice of portrait is motivated by a desire to make Trump look bad or stupid.
• Trump is not very photogenic. I think the endless discussions have proved this.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:13, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Added to that: Photo images are a special kind of issue. Unlike most other issues, they are almost completely subjective, at least as to the aspects that we have spent most of our time debating. There can be no policy basis for those arguments; even when someone asserted WP:NPOV, that was based on their completely subjective perception of the image (see "Psychological differences in perception", above). Therefore, there is no such thing as a "stronger argument" for a photo image; since nobody's mind is ever changed, these things inevitably end up a simple democratic vote whether we realize that or not. We engage in the extended debates because that's how it's done at Wikipedia, not because it serves any useful or productive purpose. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:57, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Should the dossier be mentioned in the lede?

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

---

Should this text be included in the lede:

In January 2017 a private intelligence dossier was released through the media containing claims that Trump had engaged in dubious financial and sexual practices in Russia.

• Support as nom. It seems straightforward to include it because it is written in a neutral manner and is highly pertinent to the topic. The link goes into further detail and is turning into a quite high quality article by now. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 22:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. We need more info. Proposed wording ventures too far into rumors presented as fact. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Do you have any other wording in mind? This is extremely neutral and does not going into any details. If you look at the article there is quite a bit corroborating parts of it — and it is notable enough. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 23:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - This is pretty stupid to even consider but have at it. --Malerooster (talk) 22:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Please give policy or at least reasoned arguments or they will be discounted entirely. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 23:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• Certainly Oppose in the lede; consider a sentence or two in the "Russian involvement" section of the General Election area. We need to be restrained here because the dossier remains unverified, and expert opinions differ on whether it is legitimate or not. And if we do put something in the article about it, it certainly won't say "claims that he engaged in dubious financial and sexual practices" for heavens sake! At the dossier article we are careful to avoid the sensationalism, saying things like "alleging that the Russians possess compromising material about Trump which could possibly be used for blackmail" and "that there was contact between the Russians and the Trump campaign during the election." --MelanieN (talk) 23:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, that seems like a more nuanced approach than the other opposes. How do you suggest the section be written? Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 23:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll work on it. --MelanieN (talk) 01:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Possible wording for the article text is below. Any comments? --MelanieN (talk) 16:32, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose We need to avoid putting everything that gets into the 24 hour news cycle into the lead. "Wikipedia is not a newspaper": "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." Imagine reading this article in 20 years time: "Donald Trump was a real estate tycoon and 45th president of the United States who was alleged to have (Redacted)" TFD (talk) 01:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

But in 20 years time the facts may well have emerged...--Jack Upland (talk) 01:08, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

There is quite a difference between mentioning the existence of a dossier and to repeat the contents wholesale. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 01:22, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Folks, please don't repeat the sensational allegations on this talk page. BLP applies here too. --MelanieN (talk) 01:35, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. It's just allegations, and they have been discredited.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

No they haven't. They remain unverified. --MelanieN (talk) 01:44, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

My understanding is that the report contains errors.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:48, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Your understanding, if based of a daily mail article showing a passport-cover is demonstrably naïve. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 13:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

The report does contain some errors, yes. But that does not mean that the thrust of it has been debunked. It hasn't been verified, either. It's just allegations. But they are newsworthy allegations, reportable with appropriate cautions. --MelanieN (talk) 16:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is a BLP not a tabloid. This is just political fodder and it does not belong here no matter how you word it. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose in the lede as undue. Support Melanie's "Possible wording" below as some mention must be made that the POTUS could be compromised in some manner. Objective3000 (talk) 16:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - leave it for the tabloids. GoodDay (talk) 04:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - it's not appropriate for his biography article, let alone at the lead. Try asking at the Sexual Misconduct article or maybe some other article ... Markbassett (talk) 01:31, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - Who knows what may come of this story, but at present time this is not a significant enough part of Trump's notability to warrant inclusion in the lead. However, I certainly also disagree with those who would like to excise the detail from the article altogether. This is a major media event, regarding an official government investigation. We're not allowed to just purge all reference to major allegations covered in countless reliable sources just because our WP:original research leads us to doubt this or that source. That's for the RS's themselves to grapple with. We are a tertiary source which reports on their observations, regardless of what we think about them. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/17/trump-dossier-a-crude-provocation-compiled-by-a-fugitive-crook-says-russian-minister

I see you included this at the end of your "Presidential transition" section, please include how this document has had several figures deny it's authenticity and how Buzzfeed, the news outlet that posted it, received backlash from multiple news stations including CNN who tried to separate themselves from them. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 09:34, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Possible wording

I oppose putting anything about this in the lede, but something like this could be put into the article, in the "Russian involvement" subsection of the "General election" section. I was asked to propose some wording, so here is something which is well sourced and hopefully neutral.

• In January 2017, intelligence sources informed Trump about the existence of a report written by a British private intelligence investigator. The report, referred to as a dossier, contains unverified allegations that the Russian government is in possession of compromising material about Trump, including damaging or embarrassing material which could be used to blackmail him. The dossier also claims that during the presidential campaign there were multiple contacts between Russian sources and people associated with Trump's campaign. Sources stressed that the information is unverified. Trump himself denounced the report as false, as did spokesmen for the Russian government.

References

--MelanieN (talk) 01:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Moving was pushed to Donald Trump#Presidential transition. Wording is problematic because it leads too early with the theory Trump's Russia-Manchurian candidate. As it stands right now in the section, I have no problems. NewLeaf (talk) 04:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Lead sentence - 45th and current

I think it would make sense to describe Trump in the first sentence not just as the 45th president, but as the "45th and current" president to make it clear that he is the president now. Alternatively, we could word the lead to say he "has been the 45th president of the United States since taking office on January 20, 2017" or something like that. Everymorning (talk) 21:33, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

"Is" is a present-tense verb. I've been through articles back to Eisenhower, and they all use a past-tense verb there. In no case do we say that the individual "is" the [ordinal] President of the United States. There is no ambiguity that I can see. Then there's that silly consensus thing. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:40, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

It has been our usual practice to say "45th and current". We used that formulation for Obama and Bush when they were incumbent, and we use it for other positions like governor. Since several people objected to "and current" during our last discussion, I left it out. However, that input was from only a few people and I don't regard it as a sealed and settled part of the consensus. Maybe this discussion will result in a consensus to say "45th and current" as we have done for other presidents. But the question should probably be worded or posed in such a way as to attract participation comparable to the original discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 22:05, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, of course none of the articles on former presidents say they "are" president or use any other present tense verb--because they aren't president anymore! Trump is president now so I think this article should use present tense to reflect that. Alternatively we could include "and current", though I am aware that WP:Words to watch recommends against using time-specific words like "current". Everymorning (talk) 22:10, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

No doubt in this case it will be immediately updated after 8 years.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:22, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Trump's already at negative popularity in 8 days, what makes you think he'll last one year, never mind 8? Twitbookspacetube (talk) 00:26, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

^{Trump would doubtless reply: "All your base are belong to us!" :) --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:26, 2 February 2017 (UTC)}

so I think this article should use present tense to reflect that. As I said, it already does. Omitting the irrelevant part, the first sentence says: "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is...the 45th President of the United States." I believe that's present tense if I'm not mistaken. What other articles have done is immaterial, per WP:OSE. There is no need for inter-article consistency on this, especially when it means the addition of two superfluous words. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:36, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

The "and current" wording is totally superfluous: there is only one US President today. — JFG ^talk 01:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

How about this:
Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is a prominent American businessman now serving as the 45th President of the United States. Previous to being the president, he was best known as a television personality and real estate developer who built, owns, and resides in the Trump Tower, in New York.

Born and raised in Queens, New York City, Trump received an economics degree from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania in 1968... YahwehSaves (talk) 07:56, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

As you can see by the five links at #Current consensuses, item 11, the lead sentence has been thoroughly discussed. There aren't many ideas that haven't been raised already. Constant need to improve becomes churning after awhile, with every improvement creating problems that need to be corrected, and I think we have passed that point. Good enough is good enough. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:33, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

The opening sentence(s) is not really good enough ("and the 45th President of the United States" does not read well) otherwise this topic of whether or not to add "current" and the topic ("politician" is redundant) above it, would not have been brought up concerning the opening sentence. You may think the opening sentence is good enough for "Trump" as is, but is it good enough for "the President of the US" (same with the article photo); "is a prominent American businessman and television personality now serving as the 45th President of the United States." reads better to me. YahwehSaves (talk) 20:35, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

The current sentence was chosen partly because it is consistent with the way we have always done previous presidents: "So-and-so is an American politician who is the XXth and current president of the United States." In the case of Reagan we made it "actor and politician". The debate here is whether or not to include "and current". I don't think any of us is willing to go back to square one, after dozens of discussions over a period of months, and try to write a new opening sentence from scratch based on individual variations on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --MelanieN (talk) 01:47, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

"The current sentence was chosen partly because it is consistent with the way we have always done previous presidents:". You single out "Reagan" as consistent (his opening sentence has, "was" and "who was") who unlike Trump was a governor before he became the president and disregard Eisenhower who like Trump, was not elected to any government position before he was president and is not consistent. It does not matter if anyone likes or dislikes ("WP:IDONTLIKEIT") the opening sentence, since it is not what the talk topic is about which is the proper wording for the article whether you like "and current" or not.

Dwight David "Ike" Eisenhower (/ˈaɪzənˌhaʊ.ər/ EYE-zən-HOW-ər; October 14, 1890 – March 28, 1969) was the 34th President of the United States from 1953 until 1961.

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th President of the United States. YahwehSaves (talk) 08:03, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment: It should be noted that the Eisenhower wording is a recent change. Up until about a month ago it read, "Dwight David "Ike" Eisenhower (/ˈaɪzənˌhaʊ.ər/ eye-zən-how-ər; October 14, 1890 – March 28, 1969) was an American politician and general who served as the 34th President of the United States from 1953 until 1961. " --MelanieN (talk) 23:41, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion the current wording conveys the facts clearly and concisely and reads just fine. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:59, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I have to agree with Mandruss.This sentence reads just fine now and we've already gone through extensive discussion and achieved consensus. The present tense, "is the 45th president" tells us he is the current president. Adding in 'current' is redundant. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Health/Weight

Is the phrase 'double chins' too subjective or vernacular?

Also, should the sentences--"Photographs of him golfing in casual clothing reveal his weight problem more readily than dark business suits with open jackets and long broad neckties.[582] Sensitive about his weight problem, he complained about media publishing photographs he considered unflattering, especially showing his double chins.[583]"--be deleted due to a lack of professional phrasing and content? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bennettn2 (talk • contribs) 05:12, 30 January 30 2017 (UTC)

I've removed the 'Slightly obese or obese?' section; the section title is weird (a question as a heading?), and the whole thing gives undue weight. The sources are opinion/blog pieces, and the mention about golfing in casual clothing is original research. I suppose the health section could be expanded with better reliable sources, but the content wasn't up to par as it stood. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:24, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the deletion of this section. --MelanieN (talk) 05:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Support removal, per WEIGHT (oddly). ―Mandruss ☎ 00:53, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Mention of BMI and "overweight" or "obese"

Removed per WP:FATSHAMING — JFG ^talk 00:48, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: For the record, you removed sourced content that was not under discussion here. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I know. I removed it even before reading this section. I don't think WP would tolerate mentioning the BMI of any other living person. A quick glance at the first 500 pages containing the words "BMI" and "overweight" reveals only one article about an actual person, Donna Simpson (internet celebrity), who happens to be known for a desire to become one of the world's heaviest women. Nuff said. — JFG ^talk 01:04, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Health is a legitimate topic for a sitting president, and my understanding is that overweight can affect overall health. A simple reference to BMI does not seem excessive. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:09, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Many heads of state are fat; we just never mention it. Can you imagine the outrage if this was about anybody else? Say a woman? — JFG ^talk 02:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Health/Weight issues do not belong in a BLP. I agree with JFG, et al. Sometimes this article reminds me of The Old Man and the Sea where the sharks keep feeding on the giant fish strapped to the side of the old man's boat and by the time he makes it back to shore, the fish is just a skeleton. This article is becoming bloated with all sorts of nonsense all aimed at making Trump look bad. It's truly tiresome not to mention extremely juvenile. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:29, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't know who you're accusing, but Trump doesn't need my help to look bad. I maintain that health is a legitimate topic for a sitting president. We also refer to his age, and for the same reason. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@Mandruss:, No I was not speaking to you. Please review the thread as I don't see anywhere that you introduced the idea of including his weight, etc. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:01, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

In this article yesterday, The New York Times discusses assorted Trump health topics, while saying that his longtime physician says he is healthy over all. "In recent decades, The Times has interviewed presidents, presidential candidates and their doctors about their health. At 70, Mr. Trump is the oldest person to become president." Health is a legitimate topic for a sitting president, and we don't need an abundance of reliable sources discussing Trump's health to justify one or two sentences below the lead. We can debate the language used, but I don't think we can eliminate mention of weight on the assumption that its only purpose is "fatshaming". ―Mandruss ☎ 17:36, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I didn't see the original wording, but I agree we should insert this under the "health" aspect on this page. As is obvious from this discussion, a number of reliable sources have mentioned that this is a matter for concern, but careful consideration should be accounted for in the wording of this additional information. I would also propose that tests for Alzheimer's, mentioned in the the NYT link provided by Mandruss, should be mentioned in this section too. HelgaStick (talk) 19:16, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Mandruss, thanks for pointing out this thread, which I missed when I started the new one below. It seems to me that the medications and BMI are worth a brief mention, per RS that I copied in the thread now closed below. SPECIFICO talk 20:48, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - Extreme caution is warranted with any health claims. Remarkable things like Taft's weight or FDR's polio are notable and directly related to the person's notability. The stuff being mentioned here is tabloidesque and trivial at this point. That he takes a certain prescription associated with some side effects or that his BMI is high are really not helpful to the reader, can have the appearance of shaming or rumor mongering, and are generally undue. If, and only if, RS widely and continuously report a health related issue should we include it. If it lasts only a single news cycle, it has no business being in this blp. If it becomes something larger, like the falsehoods around Clinton that actually resulted in a measurable impact, then perhaps include it. I strongly oppose any mention of any health related trivia that does not meet this bar for any BLP, even BLPs of people I dislike. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
• Comment on Trump's age. It is being noted in the press that Trump is the "oldest person elected president." and so he is. But remember, Ronald Reagan was 69 years old when he was sworn in on January 20, 1981, and a few weeks later turned 70. It's not as though this is the first time America has elected a person of or near that age. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:21, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

In the info box, underneath assumed office, can we put "Current term ends -- January 20, 2022"?

I mean, it should be there -- BoredBored (talk) 23:20, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Let's assume you mean 2021. It's a 4-year term. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:28, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Do we normally list the end of a fixed term in an infobox? Or is that regarded as WP:CRYSTAL? --MelanieN (talk) 01:32, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Come to think of it, I don't think it was in Obama's infobox. Because I remember people kept edit warring, trying to put it in, and others would remove it saying "not until noon January 20." --MelanieN (talk) 01:34, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Generally we do not, even if the person only has a few days remaining in office. I think it's been done before when someone announces their resignation. MB298 (talk) 04:18, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not usually list the end of term for incumbent elected officials, because indeed we are not a crystal ball: incumbents may or may not get re-elected, early elections may be called, death, illness or impeachment can happen, etc. — JFG ^talk 09:28, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Constructive criticism

Hello, my name is Ariana and I am critiquing this article as part of an assignment for my honors course.

One thing I noticed about some of the sources used for the "facts" presented is a lot of them came from unreliable sources, specifically newspapers and blogs that are written by biased journalists. Two of the most prominent sources were The New Yorker and the Huffington Post, which should never be used to validate information about a person's history.

Another thing I noticed is that there was some information that was unnecessary, such as the section about his health. Medical records are very personal, and unless the person who wrote this Wikipedia page has Donald Trump's permission, they shouldn't disclose the fact that he has high blood pressure. It's also completely irrelevant to his character.

With all respect, Arianabarron (talk) 18:39, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

This article is riddled with bias and passive-aggressive partisan hate, I like Wikipedia but this article is definitely on of their lowest points. I applaud you looking into each source and not just using them blindly, this is very honorable. Vox, The New Yorker, and the Huffington Post have all been used yet I've seen such sources as Breitbart thrown out, this website has a serious problem concerning bias. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 22:00, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Arianabarron

Please identify which citations you consider unreliable, and the statements which you think they are unreliable sources for. This will enable other editors to examine whether they meet WP:RS and, if not, look for alternative sources, or remove the statements.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:11, 26 January 2017 (UTC).

new yorker: sole source for nixon as inspiration, nuclear uncle, scottish clan of mother, 'buttressing' 3 more

newyorker#1. His uncle, John G. Trump, a professor at MIT from 1936 to 1973, was involved in radar research for the Allies in the Second World War, and helped design X-ray machines that prolonged the lives of cancer patients; in 1943, the Federal Bureau of Investigation requested John Trump examine Nikola Tesla's papers and equipment when Tesla died in his room at the New Yorker Hotel. the hotel is fiscally unrelated ("an ancillary enterprise not of this magazine") to the cited publication, see dab-page 47.222.203.135 (talk) 02:31, 4 February 2017 (UTC) newyorker#2. Two days later, Trump officially accepted the nomination in a 76-minute speech inspired by Richard Nixon's 1968 acceptance speech. newyorker#3. His mother, descended from Clan MacLeod of Lewis, emigrated to New York from her birthplace of Tong, Lewis, Scotland in the Gàidhealtachd. newyorker#4. Trump himself stated that his net worth was over $10 billion, with the discrepancy essentially stemming from the uncertain value of appraised property and of his personal brand. newyorker#5. Trump has been described as non-interventionist newyorker#6. Fred and Mary met in New York and married in 1936, raising their family in Queens. References

huffpo: sole source for tax return petition, climate denialism, ethics conflict; 'buttressing' 5 more

huffpo#1. In January 2017, a We the People petition demanding Trump release his tax returns broke the White House record for number of signatures gathered. huffpo#2. In January 2014, Trump made statements denying climate change that were discordant with the opinion of the scientific community. huffpo#3. Trump himself will retain his financial stake in the business. huffpo#4. These statements were recorded several months after Trump married his third and current wife, Melania, who was pregnant at the time. huffpo#5. His moves were interpreted by some media as possible promotional tools for his reality show The Apprentice. huffpo#6. In 2013 the state of New York filed a $40 million civil suit claiming that Trump University made false claims and defrauded consumers. huffpo#7. Trump's family had a two-story mock Tudor home on Midland Parkway in Jamaica Estates, where he lived while attending The Kew-Forest School. huffpo#8. In early July, Clinton's lead narrowed in national polling averages following the FBI's conclusion of its investigation into her ongoing email controversy. References

Ping Rich Farmbrough, here is a start, for assessing the two publications she explicitly noted, that were currently being used in mainspace. Suggest we begin therewith, seeing whether anything needs pruning or fixing, and if so, why specifically. That will help Ariana grok the meaning of 'Reliable' w.r.t. enWiki 47.222.203.135 (talk) 02:31, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Looking at the first HuffPo article, it clearly references Pew and the petition site. There is no reason to think that this article is incorrect in stating that the petition is a new record (though it could be challenged), nor that a bylined article is likely to be an unreliable source for a statement like this.

I hope other editors will look at the other examples, and see if there is anything untoward.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:29, 4 February 2017 (UTC).

Hi Ariana. Bias and reliability are two separate things. All media have a bias, and lack of bias does not mean facts will be accurate. Health issues are included because the mainstream has decided it is an issue of importance for people running for president. Rather than have editors with their different views determine what should be included, we rely on what mainstream sources do. The standard for determining whether this is a good article is whether it is what one would expect to find in a comparable one in the Washington Post or similarly respected source. I think it falls short. It is overly hostile and pays excessive attention to minor details. Also, there is a tendancy to use sources such as the Huffington Post because they provide free access. Not only is it easier for editors who do not have subscriptions to sites such as the Washington Post, but it is easier for readers who want to follow the links to the underlying stories. TFD (talk) 23:56, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Still doesn't explain why they don't use Breitbart but uses Huffington Post, both are equal in quality you just use one that represents your political affiliation. There's that bias again. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 07:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I see the problem here. You actually believe HuffPo and Breitbart "are both equal in quality"???? HuffPo at least makes an effort to be a serious news organization by employing well-regarded investigative journalists. Breitbart is nothing more than a cesspool of right-wing invective, alt-right racism and conspiracy-based bullshit. Something like HuffPo can be used to verify non-controversial material, or as a backup for other sources. Breitbart cannot be used for anything other than something about Breitbart. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:41, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

The data appear to support Arianabarron's point about HuffPo. See Pew Research Center, Trust Levels of News Sources by Ideological Group:

BBC (most trusted); NPR; PBS; Wall Street Journal; ABC News; CBS News; NBC News; CNN; USA Today; Google News; New York Times; Washington Post; MSNBC; Guardian; Bloomberg; New Yorker; Yahoo News; Fox News; Breitbart; Huffington Post; Colbert Report; Daily Show; ... (most distrusted).

The bar chart shows that neither the New Yorker, nor Fox News, nor Breitbart, nor HuffPo are regarded as trustworthy news sources.

@Arianabarron: Could you use Pew's survey results to calculate a "trust index" for this article compared to others? --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Probably, but there wouldn't be much point as trust and reliability/accuracy/journalism standards don't correlate very well. I don't really understand their ranking system if WSJ is the only one with all purple but isn't ranked first. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:09, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

@Dervorguilla: Totally meaningless data. The reliability of sources (the only standard we care about) cannot be assessed by trust polling. As I said before, HuffPo has a team of well-respected investigative journalists, whereas Breitbart pulls fake news out of the ass of Andrew Breitbart's festering corpse, or something. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:34, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

@Arianabarron: The immediately preceding reply illustrates the argumentative fallacies of (A) "begging the question" and (B) "dogmatism". See generally Andrea A. Lunsford, "Fallacies of Argument", in Everything's an Argument. What Wikipedia cares about is whether a source is reportedly regarded as reliable by most people -- not whether it is so regarded by most Wikipedia editors. --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:55, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

@Dervorguilla: And your comment is a personal attack, however florid the framing. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:18, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Off topic. Experience tells us where this is likely headed. Nipping in bud. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:05, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@Dervorguilla: Any criticism of Scjessey, or anything he has ever said or done, no matter how well-founded and polite the criticism, is automatically defined as a personal attack. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 07:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC) @Phoenix and Winslow: Absolutely right! That said, if you have nothing useful to say besides this form of trolling, maybe it would be better unsaid? -- Scjessey (talk) 15:21, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

The poll is about public trust which has nothing to do with reliability. Note too that the results may have more to do with the editorial policies of the publications, rather than actual news reporting. TFD (talk) 21:01, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

@Arianabarron: The immediately preceding reply illustrates the argumentative fallacies of (A) begging the question and (C) equivocation. Most of Pew's survey respondents were adult; and when the average adult member of the public says she has "trust" in a source, she means she regards its factual reporting as reliable. --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:55, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Generally speaking, people trust sources that confirm their core beliefs. Sources that do so are objective and honest, those who do not are biased and dishonest. Thus the perception of bias is biased. U.S. politics today is largely an Orwellian marketplace of illusions, and virtually all Americans are drinking Kool-Aid of one flavor or another. That includes most Wikipedia editors who edit U.S. politics. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:08, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Great point here, Mandruss! But don't we all love this post-Orwellian world, with millions of little brothers instead of a singe big one? — JFG ^talk 23:07, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Most of us do, apparently, or we wouldn't have allowed it to happen. I'm not one of them. But I understand you were being ironic. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:12, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Not me. Unlike JFG who was only singed by big brother apparently, I've been burned by big brother. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 02:31, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

@Arianabarron: Mandruss's argument is correct in general. To illustrate, most people have the "core belief" that Trump won the election; and most people don't trust HuffPo, which made the claim that he couldn't win, because he was so demonstrably unprincipled. In contrast, the Wall Street Journal made the claim that Clinton is likewise unprincipled, which accords with 54% of American's core beliefs (whether or not it's objectively accurate). --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:25, 29 January 2017 (UTC)