Talk:Health of Donald Trump

Attribution

Some material in this article was originally derived from the articles, Bandy X. Lee, The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump, John Gartner (psychologist), and Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. bd2412 T 04:08, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Physical section initially copied from Donald Trump#Health and lifestyle, then amended. — JFG ^talk 01:36, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

not "early" onset Alzheimers

I've heard reporters speculate about early onset Alzheimers as well. However, Trump is 72, too old for early onset Alzheimers.1Veertje (talk) 11:40, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I am just going by the source here - although I see that it says "early signs of dementia" and "early stage dementia", not "early onset", so I will adjust that section accordingly. bd2412 T 12:42, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Expand to "Health of Donald Trump"?

We could expand this to cover all health matters, and just call it "Health of Donald Trump". That would be in keeping with other articles on individuals by health, such as Health of Frédéric Chopin, Health of Abraham Lincoln, and Health of Adolf Hitler, each of which has a section on "Mental health". Thoughts? bd2412 T 02:10, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:19, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Done. I will leave it to others to expand further on his physical health. bd2412 T 22:36, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for moving. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:00, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Seems there's some inconsistency, as some articles start with "health of" (Health of Abraham Lincoln) while others do not (Adolf Hitler's health). ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:01, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

The vast majority of articles about characteristics of a subject are titled with "Foo of Bar" constructions. This is particularly so with articles about Trump himself - Inauguration of Donald Trump, Business career of Donald Trump, Legal affairs of Donald Trump, Racial views of Donald Trump, Bibliography of Donald Trump, etc. bd2412 T 23:14, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Coatrack

This article is ostensibly about Trump's health, but it is really a compilation of negative speculation that he is dangerous and crazy. When you include something like this "the subject of the President's mental health amounted to a "state of emergency" as "our survival as a species may be at stake" it is abundantly clear that the article is designed to express a virulent anti-Trump POV. But for the almost trivial inclusion of actual medical findings from medical professionals who have actually examined Trump, I would've speedied this G10 as an attack page. – Lionel^(talk) 19:31, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

The article accurately reports on claims that have been widely reported in reliable sources, and which are directly relevant to the subject of the article, as mental health is part of health overall (see, e.g., Health of Abraham Lincoln, Health of Charles Darwin. Most of this content was originally derived from other Wikipedia articles already reporting this content without objection, or after discussion and consensus as to their contents. This article also reports responses to those claims by the subject and other persons. I therefore propose that the "coatrack" tag be removed from this article. bd2412 T 19:41, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

"Most of this content was originally derived from other Wikipedia articles" It's one thing to create an article for a book The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump. It's totally different to include this these wild speculations in a BLP. Can't you see the difference? – Lionel^(talk) 19:49, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

The speculations in the article on the book are about the BLP subject, and are widely reported as professional opinions on an aspect of the health of the subject. They conform with all restrictions of BLP, which only requires that potentially controversial information has been verifiably reported in reliable sources. Every statement in the article is supported by such a source, and directly tied by that source to the general topic of the article. bd2412 T 20:02, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

i hadn't noticed at first, but most of the speculation about Trump's mental health and potential doomsday scenarios was actually lifted straight from the article on the book The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump. Methinks we are giving this book too much weight for a general article about Trump's health. I would cut that section to a couple paragraphs at most, removing long quotes and opinion-mongering. — JFG ^talk 20:18, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I have no objection to reducing the material to a more summary style, so long as relevant information is not lost in the process. bd2412 T 20:20, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I have tightened it up a bit. I don't know that we need as much discussion of the Goldwater Rule as is currently in the article. bd2412 T 20:27, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Not only are the other "Health of..." articles WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but this is apples and oranges. Those are not BLPs, and scholars have had a century to study those individuals. In Trump's case we're talking about a living person for whom we have published medical reports which for the most part contradict the wild speculation. Additionally the exaggerated speculation on his mental state is politically driven. – Lionel^(talk) 20:43, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump is WP:UNDUE and has no place in this article. – Lionel^(talk) 20:45, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

BLP concerns are irrelevant to the WP:COATRACK question, and I have already directly addressed these. For more recent comparison, we have Health and appearance of Michael Jackson, which was created while he was still alive, and a section redirect from Health of Hillary Clinton. Scholars have had several years to study this article subject, and they have done so. bd2412 T 20:53, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I have further reduced the content regarding The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump, bringing it down to one paragraph. bd2412 T 21:02, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, looks better. — JFG ^talk 21:14, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

This article is not a coatrack. The article subject is Trump's health, which sources are not particularly flattering about (for good reason), and that is what the article covers. BD2412's first comment in this section is pretty close to my own thinking. That's not to say that we shouldn't be careful about assigning proper weight to material, but overall, the article is comprehensive and verifiable.- MrX 🖋 20:58, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

June 2019

WP:PUBLICFIGURE (this man is may be #1 in the world for this) under WP:BLP. In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. starship.paint (talk) 05:38, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I think it is more about the noteworthy/relevant part that is the issue. PackMecEng (talk) 12:22, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

@PackMecEng: - well, it's definitely relevant. This article is about Trump's health. His mental health is relevant to his article on health. Is it noteworthy? If Trump has a mental illness, it seems noteworthy, yes. He is a very powerful man. Certainly this, if true, will have repercussions. starship.paint (talk) 01:17, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

The issue in evaluating Trump's mental health is that unless the doctor making these claims have evaluated him in person they are worthless. That is because of the Goldwater rule, we try not to do armchair diagnostics. PackMecEng (talk) 01:23, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure that they are entirely worthless. Obviously, Trump is a very public person. Tweets, speeches, actions. There's a lot of observable behaviour. starship.paint (talk) 01:31, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

The Goldwater rule is applicable to psychiatrists under the jurisdiction of specific U.S. licensing bodies. It is not at all applicable to Wikipedia articles - or, for that matter, to any reporting or news or fact, as evidenced by the fact that numerous reliable sources have reported on the specific debate at issue here. Also, we are not attempting any diagnostics at all here. We are merely reporting on statements made by these reliable sources on a notable subject. bd2412 T 02:02, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

The Goldwater rule was the standard for inclusion on the main Trump article for BLP reasons. Also the end run of well all these sources say he's crazy so it's fine is not going to fly. PackMecEng (talk) 02:31, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

This article does not draw any conclusions in Wikipedia's voice at all. It merely reports what reliable sources say about the controversy, and it reports both sides of the issue. We are not going to start censoring ourselves merely because the subject of reporting by reliable sources is also a politically controversial figure. bd2412 T 02:45, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

JFG - thanks for splitting this off. I somehow didn't notice that this was an old discussion. starship.paint (talk) 05:30, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Article nominated for deletion

This article has been nominated for deletion, please comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Health of Donald Trump. starship.paint (talk) 03:01, 9 June 2019 (UTC)