Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 65

Archive 60

←

Archive 63

Archive 64

Archive 65

Archive 66

Archive 67

→

Archive 70

For the X, see Y

Though there is already a disambiguation at the top of this article, I propose that we add another one that directs to the Presidency of Donald Trump article. While this goes against the style normally employed on articles, I believe that due to the high number of viewers this article has this change should be made. Most people not familiar with Wikipedia may not know how to access the disambiguation link, or will be frustrated scrolling down this article to find a direct link to the Trump Presidency page. My suggestion would be

For the Presidency of Donald Trump, see Presidency of Donald Trump.

. Thoughts? SamHolt6 (talk) 14:35, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I think we could perhaps find a way of working it into the prose. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Currently the first link to the Presidency of Donald Trump article is at the start of the fourth paragraph of the lede. It has also been shortened to presidency, which may confuse some readers. Just wanted to point this out for the sake of accessibility, I will leave any changes to a more experienced editor. SamHolt6 (talk) 17:57, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I changed the link text to "his presidency" per WP:EGG. The most predictable target of "presidency" is Presidency. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:43, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I support this. Many people expect the specifics of Trump's presidency to be on here; for article length reasons that's impossible. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:12, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 July 2017

in the UK the second or third book of a book of the bible is pronounced two john or three john & since trump's mother is a scotland native he mustve picked this usage up from her Hawkuuu (talk) 18:48, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

"He must've" is not a reliable source though, so there's not really anything to change in the article. Most sources regard this (this being the 2 Corinthians story from primary season btw) as a gaffe. ValarianB (talk) 19:14, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Activepol=?

Should it be activepol=yes for this? I understand there is a lot at the top already but doesn't this still apply? Or is it just unnecessary? WikiVirusC^(talk) 13:35, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Not necessary: there are ample warnings already, many of them stronger than the activepol boilerplate. — JFG ^talk 15:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity

You are invited to participate in Talk:Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity#RfC: Russian interference in Background section. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Partial Cease-Fire

Trump and Putin had a special meeting at the G20 summit, where they negotiated a partial cease-fire in special zones in Syria. I don't know all the details, but it's my understanding that the zones are intended to simplify and expand relief efforts. Is there a consensus on how to address this information? (this topic is also suggested here)- Sleyece 17:44:22, July 8, 2017 (UTC)

Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration is the page to discuss it while it is in progress. Until the news cycle is done it shouldn't be included here. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:02, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Now that the G20 2017 has ended, will users revisit this topic? - Sleyece (talk) 15:40, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how it is notable enough to make this biography. This article is meant to represent the key elements of Donald Trump's entire life, and this is a pretty small thing in the grand scheme of things. If the cease-fire endures, and it becomes something "historic" later on, then yeah. But for now, it should be in Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration, and maybe Presidency of Donald Trump. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:22, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but it looks like the cease fire is in a small area which wasn’t in a major fire zone anyhow. And, we have no idea if it will hold at this point. It belongs in Syrian_Civil_War_ceasefires, which only has one sentence on it now. Objective3000 (talk) 22:17, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Objective3000, it seems you are correct. The cease fire is already mentioned in the appropriate article. Sleyece (talk) 17:19, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Surprise victory?

I was surprised last November but according to what sources was that a surprise victory? Based on what was that a surprise? We cannot write that it was a surprise only because some people were surprised. I would like to se at least one note. Is there any official definition of surprises when it comes to elections? Calle Widmann 14:33, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

[1], [2], [3] Objective3000 (talk) 14:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

People have such short memory. Trump himself did not believe he could win [4], [5] So It's fair to say even Trump was surprised by the victory. Darwinian Ape ^talk 15:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Literally thousands of sources worldwide have noted this election as a giant unexpected political upset. Even on election evening, by all media estimates, Clinton was considered the 92% likely winner up to minutes before Trump victory was declared, then hell froze over… you could see it the incredulous-to-flabbergasted looks on every pundit's face. — JFG ^talk 16:20, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

You have convinced me. Thank you! Calle Widmann (talk) 17:09, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

New sub-pages list in Talk Page head?

Is there interest in having a list of the most likely sub-pages for people to add content to at the top of this page? Specifically:

• Presidency of Donald Trump
• Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration
• Donald Trump on social media
• Dismissal of James Comey

Power~enwiki (talk) 01:10, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like a useful idea; why not try it for a while and see if it reduces the amount of comments along the lines of "Trump said this today, that's totally unprecedented and will undoubtedly be considered significant in 100 years; we must include it HERE and RIGHT NOW!". I would not list the Comey dismissal page, but rather the Russian interference article, and perhaps the immigration policy page too. Timeline pages may also be useful (currently Timeline of the Trump presidency, 2017 Q3). — JFG ^talk 09:11, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: Thanks for your first draft; I have amended the wording a little and also posted it in the edit notice so that all contributors get the message. Let's see how this develops… — JFG ^talk 12:56, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Really a good idea. Finally we can expect that those articles will have some more updated content. Lorstaking (talk) 17:45, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Great idea. I only hope it works -- can dream that some of the stuff now at this BLP will move over time. Markbassett (talk) 00:43, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I would point out that just because there is another "space for it" does not mean it doesn't belong in his bio. In fact, if we are to start taking the axe out on content already in the article, its really his entertainment and business career that needs trimming. Other stuff is far more historically important and that can be shortened.Casprings (talk) 00:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Sure, some events related to Trump's presidency may be significant enough for his overall biography, but it's generally too early to pick which ones. Documenting recent events in the relevant policy, timeline and presidency pages first is the correct approach. Then, some elements from there may be summarized here. To your other point, many sections of the bio have been shortened already; feel free to suggest what else should be trimmed. — JFG ^talk 05:39, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Trump Campaign—Russian meeting

This new page is important but needs development. It is here: Trump Campaign—Russian meeting Casprings (talk) 01:06, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

"earned an economics degree from the Wharton School"

The article currently states that Trump "earned an economics degree from the Wharton School". Since the Wharton School is best known for its MBA program, I was wondering if it wouldn't be better to say that he "graduated from the Wharton School with a B.S. in economics" or that he "earned a B.S. in economics from the Wharton School". I bring it up because apparently there has been confusion about this in the past. See for instance the following sources:

• "For decades, the national media has reported that Trump graduated "first in his class" at Wharton, often confusing his undergraduate degree with the Ivy League university's top-ranked MBA program."
• [Trump] "went to Fordham University, a Jesuit school in the Bronx, for two years, before transferring to the University of Pennsylvania and studied economics for two years, graduating in 1968 with a bachelor’s degree. He took undergraduate classes at Penn’s famed Wharton School of Business. Though he was not enrolled in Wharton’s prestigious MBA program, the Spring 2007 Wharton Alumni Magazine featured Trump, with this headline, 'The Best Brand Name in Real Estate.'"
• "And if you assumed his degree was an MBA, you’d be wrong. Trump holds a bachelor of science degree in economics from Wharton, earned after transferring in as a junior from Fordham University."

I'm not out to right great wrongs, but it seems like we can head off this misconception without going too much out of our way. ~Awilley (talk) 22:42, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. This statement in the lead is clarified in the infobox and body, but it shouldn't need clarification. I support your second example with the addition of the word "degree", as B.S. alone is a little too informal for my taste. "earned a B.S. degree in economics from the Wharton School". ―Mandruss ☎ 22:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Makes sense. That's what Wharton calls it. [6] Objective3000 (talk) 11:00, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I feel the bad jokes coming is we say Trump got a B.S. degree. — JFG ^talk 18:01, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

If he had a degree in B.S., it would be a doctorate. So no ambiguity there. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:23, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

The link Objective3000 gave calls it a "Bachelor of Science in Economics". Would that work for you @Mandruss:? (Changing it from "earned an economics degree from the Wharton School" to "graduated from the Wharton School with a Bachelor of Science in economics") ~Awilley (talk) 00:44, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

@Awilley: I'm not married to Wharton's choice of wording, we're allowed to paraphrase. The meaning is the same. My only objection was to being overly casual. Aside from that, I'm not strongly opposed to anything that eliminates the ambiguity. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:30, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Would it be more accurate to say he received a degree from the University of Pennsylvania? Power~enwiki (talk) 23:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Addressed by consensus 18. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Anyway, "earned" a degree is a bit of a stretch. It's like saying "earned a draft deferrnment..." SPECIFICO talk 18:38, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Nah. Wharton isn't known for being a diploma mill, they do make you work for it. Credit where credit is due, like criticism and blame. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Presumptive nominee

You are invited to participate in an RfC at Talk:Attempted assassination of Donald Trump#RfC: Presumptive nominee Talk:List of United States presidential assassination attempts and plots#RfC: Presumptive nominee:

• There is an ongoing dispute at List of United States presidential assassination attempts and plots over whether it is appropriate to say that as of June 18, 2016, Donald Trump was the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party. There was an earlier RfC at Attempted assassination of Donald Trump that also explicitly included List of United States presidential assassination attempts and plots, but it is argued that the earlier RfC doesn't apply. —Anomalocaris (talk) 18:37, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Was this posted in error? The RfC on that page was closed by the OP last week. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:05, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Oops, the RfC discussion is at Talk:List of United States presidential assassination attempts and plots#RfC: Presumptive nominee. —Anomalocaris (talk) 19:22, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Psychological make-up

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.

---

Just as there is a section on Trump's overall physical health, it would be an addition to the article to have something on his psychological make-up - as well-sourced and verifiable as possible, of course. I don't believe it is a contentious statement to assert that he has a mindset and self-presentation not usually seen in politicians. The Mind of Donald Trump, written by an academic psychologist before the election, would seem one place to start. I might be bold enough to insert a sentence, but I am not going to risk creating a new section. Any thoughts? Carbon Caryatid (talk) 13:52, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Seems pretty fraught for an encyclopedia article, and a timesump. Time will tell. In 4 years, there should be some consensus backed by factual evidence as to his mindset. SPECIFICO talk 14:09, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

If it’s an armchair analysis, it runs afoul of the Goldwater_rule. If he had sessions with Trump, it’s still iffy in a political BLP. After Trump is out of office and historians and psychologists have had time to digest his presidency; it would be appropriate. And, as SPECIFICO says, it’d be a timesump. Objective3000 (talk) 14:17, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I hadn't heard of the Goldwater rule; thank you for that. A crucial distinction, though, is that it refers to psychiatrists and the diagnosis of mental illness, while I am referring to psychologists' assessment of someone's overall temperament and personality. I'd see that as equivalent to describing someone as "tall, slightly overweight, with a limp in his left leg": observable facts (6'2"), or normal-speech fair interpretations (tall). From the article:

In creating this portrait, I will draw from well-validated concepts in the fields of personality, developmental, and social psychology. Ever since Sigmund Freud analyzed the life and art of Leonardo da Vinci, in 1910, scholars have applied psychological lenses to the lives of famous people. Many early efforts relied upon untested, nonscientific ideas. In recent years, however, psychologists have increasingly used the tools and concepts of psychological science to shed light on notable lives, as I did in a 2011 book on George W. Bush.

Trump has been in the public eye for decades, and his pronouncements and actions are there for anyone to draw conclusions from - including academic experts in various fields. As for my proposal being a timesump - true, but isn't that the case for any of our articles about the man? Carbon Caryatid (talk) 18:15, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per SPECIFICO and Objective3000. Far more coverage by secondary sources would be needed to even have a WP:WEIGHT discussion about this for a sitting president. It would probably fail even then, simply due to the fact that it would be so heavy on educated speculation. I don't care how much some psychologists think they know, Goldwater still applies. I have seen this kind of discussion in a half-dozen BLPs, and I've yet to see content like this get into one. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:58, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Not only that, but Goldwater really was nuts! SPECIFICO talk 19:28, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - seems a bit of rehash of Presidency of Donald Trump - RfC: Possible POV of Authoritarian tendencies and likely to fail on the same NPOV, BALASP, and other concerns. One could google up any one viewpoint, but unless something is a big portion of his life it is WP:OFFTOPIC for this BLP article. It just seems likely to be or become just WP:SOAPBOX space to gossip and innuendo opinions and politically-corrupted posturing and not factual objective events of his actual personal treatment. Markbassett (talk) 00:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - Due to the Goldwater rule, reliable sources can't exist at this time. Separately, I would support removing the "Health" section entirely. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:30, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually, it only means that most psychiatrists licensed under the APA may face a charge of an ethics violation if they provided such an opinion; it doesn't mean that some might not still do so (or that we would be required to view it as non-reliable if they did), nor does it mean that another expert (psychiatrist, another medical or behavioural expert, or psychologist) who is not bound by APA conduct standards (because of the nature of their accreditation or because they practice outside the U.S.) might not say something similar. That said, I tend to agree with your broader point that it is far too soon to be considering the feasibility of such a section, from the probable weight of the number of sources available at this point and their likely speculative/superficial coverage of the topic. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Point taken, we should stop trying to use the Goldwater rule to bolster opposition to this kind of content. I don't think we need it, much. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:54, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

True. Although if we’re ever tempted to include armchair psychological analyses of living politicians; I think it’s wise to keep in mind the strong opinion of the APA. Objective3000 (talk) 16:06, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose – Just wtf. All leaders are egomaniac narcissists, many are borderline paranoid, some are totally mad. None of them is characterized this way in Wikipedia. Care to write an essay on the mental health of Pol Pot, anyone? — JFG ^talk 20:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: Is this worthy of the list? Consensus seems pretty clear, even with relatively low participation, and chances are fair it will come up again. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:42, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

You're right, and I'm pretty sure it came up before. Go add an item if you feel like it. — JFG ^talk 20:30, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Done.[7] To all: If you can locate previous discussions that clearly support this consensus, please add those links to the item. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:44, 18 July 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.

Immigration orders

The article contains duplicated information about the immigration orders in two places. One is under "First 100 days" in a subsection titled "Immigration orders". The other is under "Domestic policy" in a subsection titled "immigration," which also includes a couple of paragraphs on what he said about immigration during the campaign. Both sections are well developed and well referenced, but I don't think we need this in two places - especially in such a crowded biographical article. Any thoughts what we should do about this, and where such information should go? Personally I would leave the orders under "first 100 days" with a brief mention under "Domestic policy-immigration," but I can see arguments for doing it the other way - or keeping it in both places. Comments? (And please, don't anybody go WP:BOLD and start deleting stuff until we reach a consensus here.) --MelanieN (talk) 16:19, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Portrait of Trump during election cycle

You are invited to comment at Talk:United States presidential election, 2016#Anachronistic Trump portrait. — JFG ^talk 00:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Russia-related articles in Trump sidebar

You are invited to comment at Template talk:Donald Trump series#Too many articles about Russia. — JFG ^talk 05:21, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Photograph of Leila Lopes

The article on Donald Trump has a sub-section titled "Miss Universe," which describes Trump's ownership of the Miss Universe pageants. A photograph of Leila Lopes as Miss Universe 2011 appears as part of the description. A solo photograph of Lopes is inappropriate in the article, because Lopes alone has nothing to do with Donald Trump. A photo of Trump AND a Miss Universe winner would be much more appropriate. A solo photo of Hillary Clinton would be inappropriate in Trump's article, and the same thing applies to the Miss Universe Pageant.

I previously deleted this photograph, but my edit was reverted. What the hell does Leila Lopes have to do with Donald Trump? The answer: NOTHING. A photograph is supposed to relate to the article in which it appears.

Anthony22 (talk) 23:38, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

What reason did the reverting editor give for reverting? It's always helpful to come with diffs.- MrX 23:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree. I removed it once and was reverted. I think it adds little informational value about the article's subject and is largely decorative. Time to settle it. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:55, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I removed it. It adds nothing to a reader's understanding of President Trump. Images are not article decorations.- MrX 00:17, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

By this logic, we could remove 90% of pictures. Of course pictures are decorative! Trump's involvement with the Miss Universe franchise is a significant part of his biography, so it's DUE in this… biography article. Now, you raise a legitimate question: "How to best illustrate Miss Universe as it relates with Trump?" We have basically four choices:

1. A group picture of Miss Universe contestants in the time period when Trump owned the pageant
2. A solo picture of a Miss Universe winner in the time period when Trump owned the pageant
3. A picture of a Miss Universe winner together wth Trump
4. The Miss Universe logo

Option #4 is a non-starter: it would look like advertising and there may be copyright fair use issues. The current image is an instance of option #2; there was another one previously, File:Miss Universe Dayana Mendoza en Nicaragua 11.jpg which I had chosen because her "Miss Universe" sash was clearly visible; somebody else then picked Lopes. Anthony22 suggests option #3. However we don't need a picture of the Taj Mahal with Trump's face on it, a picture of Mar-a-Lago with Trump inviting guests in, or a picture of Trump advertising Trump Steaks. so I don't see why the Miss Universe illustration should include Trump's face. We are not writing the hagiography of Mao Ze Dong: despite speculation that Trump suffers a cult of personality, his portrait is not mandated to be everywhere. In a nutshell, I suggest to keep option #2, the portrait of a Miss Universe winner. Could be Lopes or Mendoza or yet another, that's a subjective æsthetical choice. — JFG ^talk 05:26, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

You missed the most obvious option, which is don't have an image. Support no image at all. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:37, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Of course pictures are decorative! Per MOS:PERTINENCE, images should not be primarily decorative, and this one is. Anybody can imagine what a Miss Universe looks like; you just picture a beautiful young woman with impeccable, glamorous hair and makeup, dressed to the nines and wearing a sash. So the image adds nothing informative to the reader, aside from showing what that particular Miss Universe looked like during the pageant. If the same reasoning applies to other images in the article, feel free to propose removal of some of them, separately—or boldly remove them and see what happens. (I feel that, these days, an article regrettably needs a minimum number of images to draw the reader to the text. I'm willing to accept some number of primarily-decorative images if that's necessary to meet that minimum number. per WP:IAR. But we're well above the minimum in this article and could afford to lose a few.) ―Mandruss ☎ 16:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Consider that without this image, we have zero illustration of the level-3 section called "Side ventures" which are a notable enough part of Trump's bio as to deserve a sentence in the lede. I would argue that Trump's involvement with Miss Universe is the most notable of his side ventures, and therefore illustrating said side ventures with a picture of a Miss Universe sash is perfectly relevant. About the "do not decorate excessively" aspect, I would note that we are now faced with about three screenfuls of straight prose in the middle of the article: adding a picture here is not excessive. — JFG ^talk 17:03, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to remove a nondescript building entrance at 40 Wall Street: we have enough buildings in this article already, that's a case of "excessive decoration". Perhaps I can trade this for the restoration of Miss Universe? — JFG ^talk 17:05, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like a good trade on all kinds of levels. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:53, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

A few days with no replies. @Anthony22, MrX, Mandruss, Scjessey, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, and MelanieN: Any further input on this? I plead to restore this picture or another Miss Universe. — JFG ^talk 20:48, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Since my argument is not primarily about number of images, the trade proposal seems to miss the point. The fact remains that the image is primarily decorative. My objection stands, but it's not what I would call a strong one; I'm not going to RfC with this. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:00, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Restoring it makes sense to me. --MelanieN (talk) 21:16, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it adds anything to the article, but I don't care enough to raise a full-throated objection. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:43, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I still oppose the photo. It has very little to do with Trump and conveys no encyclopedic information to readers. Its value is purely decorative, contrary to MOS:PERTINENCE. As far as I can tell, there is no consensus for including it. I have no objection to removing the building entrance photo.- MrX 13:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I feel a group photo would be better than just a single winner. Altogether I don't really feel the necessity of a photo there. In terms of his "side projects", some sort of image representing the Foundation or University would be better as they are things he founded, but then again it also is fine without any art. WikiVirusC^(talk) 21:37, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 July 2017

2001:8003:6F4C:200:744B:EBDA:A462:1088 (talk) 02:20, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
donald trump loves CHINA

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.WikiVirusC^(talk) 02:27, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Sentence about popular vote in “Protests”

Under “Protests,” the article states:

“Some argued that Clinton's popular vote victory meant Trump was not the democratically elected president and should be considered illegitimate.”

Although it is certainly true, what of it? It is also true that some claimed President Obama’s presidency was illegitimate due to his alleged foreign birth. Neither accusation deserves to be legitimized in the biographical articles per se as both are equally untrue regarding legitimacy. President Trump could not have lost an election that never took place. There is no election in the United States for president in which the victor is determined by who carries the most votes nationwide any more than there is one in which the winner is decided by which candidate the electorate finds to be the most photogenic. Considering this fact, here is, I think, the most important point. If there were a presidential election decided by the most votes nationwide, then the campaigns would have been entirely different with the two major candidates spending more time and resources in states which they had little to no realistic chance of winning under the current electoral system. Thus, the assumption that had there been a nationwide popular vote contest that the result would have been the same regarding the popular vote is totally unwarranted as are accusations that “millions of illegal voters” cast ballots in the absence of proof.

I respectfully request a support/oppose vote as to my motion to strike the aforementioned passage as biased due to the charge having no basis in reality and therefore not worthy of mentioning in the article.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 22:09, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I think there are four WP articles discussing the claims that Obama was not a legitimate President. Five if you count the article on Corsi's book. But, I’m ambivalent about this mention in the bio. Objective3000 (talk) 22:18, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, but in President Obama’s main biographical article? If so, then I don’t think there should be in his case either.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 22:47, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to agree with you, HistoryBuff - even though the source supports it. (The reference cited says, "Some are questioning the legitimacy of Trump's victory over Hillary Clinton by noting that although he took the Electoral College, Clinton won the popular vote.") For one thing, "some" is a weasel word. For another thing, "illegitimacy" has never been a strong theme of the protesters, and there has been no serious movement to overturn the election. So I would say, delete it. Its contribution to this biography article is more negative than positive. --MelanieN (talk) 22:22, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't appear to be particularly useful in the bio. Probably not elsewhere either. Objective3000 (talk) 22:31, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

• Delete – That's partisan weaseling, not to mention against the U.S. Constitution, Article 2! — JFG ^talk 00:46, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
• Looks like consensus to remove it, so I did so. --MelanieN (talk) 15:14, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
• I agree with the removal. Its a very weaselly addition that smacks of an attempt to retroactively move the goalposts of the election from what everybody knew they were going into the election. Popular vote was never something that mattered, and does not affect legitimacy. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:43, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 July 2017

Add history with Saturday Night Live to Section 3.3 “Acting and public image”.

Saturday Night Live

Donald Trump’s tenure as a public figure has been parodied and documented on the NBC television show Saturday Night Live (SNL). Trump’s history with the NBC television show Saturday Night Live dates back to 1988. He has hosted the show twice, made a cameo appearance, and been portrayed in skits by several actors on the show.

Hosting

Donald Trump has hosted Saturday Night Live on two occasions. On April 3, 2004 Trump hosted SNL Season 29 Episode 16 with musical guest Toots and The Maytals. On November 7, 2015 Trump hosted SNL Season 41 Episode 4 with musical guest Sia. Trump is one of 17 presidential candidates who have appeared on Saturday Night Live, and the only American President to have hosted the show.

Portrayals

Trump has been played as a character in Saturday Night Live skits by actors Phil Hartman, Darrell Hammond and Alec Baldwin. The Donald Trump character has been included in 47 skits since 1988.

Phil Hartman portrayed Donald Trump 4 times on the show, including the original portrayal in 1988 in a sketch entitled "A Trump Christmas ". Darrell Hammond portrayed Donald Trump 21 times on the show. Alec Baldwin portrayed Donald Trump 22 times on the show, including portrayal of Trump during his presidency User129862 (talk) 17:41, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Sources

•  Not done – These would be appropriate additions to our sub-article Donald Trump in popular culture. It's overkill for the main biography. Then, a summary sentence could be added here. — JFG ^talk 17:44, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Done (summary) – I just added a short summary of the most notable Trump parodies.[8] Hope this helps. — JFG ^talk 18:09, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Handshakes

See new article at Donald Trump's handshakes. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:05, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Seriously? -- Scjessey (talk) 13:49, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Why? Sleyece (talk) 13:59, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Facepalm — JFG ^talk 15:32, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I love it!- MrX 15:40, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile:Thanks for notifying here on this talk page about this. In the future, you may want to notify in addition to, or instead, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Donald Trump. I also note that Trump himself has commented upon this phenomenon [9] [10] [11]. So yeah, Onceinawhile, thank you for the initiative for the new article creation, but in the future if you could please post a new notification also to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Donald Trump, as well. Thank you ! Sagecandor (talk) 19:53, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks. I will add a notice regarding the deletion discussion there. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:58, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Meh. Rather have a section of Trump anagrams. Objective3000 (talk) 00:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Know any good ones? 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 22:26, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

"Damn turd pol"? Define "good". Remove if blpvio. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 August 2017

Imchangingeverything (talk) 15:02, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
isnt he the 46th presedent of the united states

• Nope. He is the 45th. You can follow along the numbering here. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 16:18, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Protest vs inauguration

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.

---

A sentence in the Protests section states that the number of protesters for the Women's March on Washington "was more than three times the number of people who were at Trump's inaugural speech". This is sourced to some crowd-counting done on both days on aerial views of the Washington mall, by "crowd scientists at the Manchester Metropolitan University." However, this statement is contradicted by numbers actually reported for both events, i.e. roughly 500,000 for the protest and 300,000–600,000 for the inauguration, according to the same crowd science expert from Manchester.[12] Even within the uncertainties, none of these numbers can be called "three times the size" of the other.

Besides the mathematical error, comparing those event attendances is WP:TRIVIA, undue in Trump's main biography (may be informative as a side note in the 2017 Women's March article, to highlight the particularly large following of this protest). Accordingly I deleted the sentence and SPECIFICO reverted me, providing a better source (thanks) which still made the same calculation error. Should we keep this sentence or delete it? — JFG ^talk 17:36, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, deleting a widely reported statement that could be cited to any of dozens of RS didn't change the underlying facts. Now round two the new rationales for deletion are no more convincing, imo. Ping me when round 3 begins. SPECIFICO talk 18:07, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

As we disagree on the relevance and exactitude of this statement, I'm simply opening up discussion for the wider community. Not that I expect to convince you, my friend! — JFG ^talk 18:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Whilst changing horses in mid-stream. SPECIFICO talk 19:11, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

• Remove The "underlying facts" in this case are that the statement, no matter how well sourced, is objectively false and contradicted by the source itself. We must not print information that is unsupported by its own source. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
• Delete Even if accurate, the sentence is WP:UNDUE for this article. Trump himself remains obsessed over the size of his inauguration crowd; we don't have to do the same. --MelanieN (talk) 18:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think this text is in the article to mock his obsession with the crowd size. It comes up in the context of the post-inaugural protests and the comparison was widely cited in the media. The protests do seem noteworthy so it's not clear the estimate and Trump's boasts are off topic here. SPECIFICO talk 19:14, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

• Nah Don’t care much for mine is bigger than yours contests. Objective3000 (talk) 19:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
• Delete - I'm happy knowing the protests dwarfed the Inauguration. I don't need to see it in the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done per consensus to remove. — JFG ^talk 21:34, 27 July 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.

Commenting on Trump’s mental health is fine, psychiatry group says

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.

---

This is a significant change:

http://time.com/4872343/american-psychoanalytic-association-trump-mental-health/

https://www.statnews.com/2017/07/25/psychiatry-goldwater-rule-trump/

https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/25/16025112/goldwater-rule-mental-health-american-psychoanalytic-association-donald-trump

https://www.forbes.com/sites/markjoyella/2017/07/25/crazy-talk-cable-news-cleared-to-talk-trumps-mental-health/#5ed651ad511c

BullRangifer (talk) 04:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

And the American Psychiatric Association still says that's a no-no. From the New Yorker (via Verge source) "I think there’s a duty to warn,” psychiatrist Jerrold Post told The New Yorker. “It seems unethical to not contribute at this perilous time.”" Gee, I wonder Dr. Post voted for? I'm not sure what the point of this source dump was, but if it's to add material to the man's biography, it would still likely be a POV BLPVIO. Hidden Tempo (talk) 05:01, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Just because one association still disallows it and the other does, the one does not negate the other. Both should be included. That's what our policies require.

BTW, you shouldn't carelessly throw around "POV BLPVIO" without knowing what it means. In this case, "POV" is a personal attack and failure to AGF. "BLPVIO" only refers to "unsourced" negative content, never to properly sourced content, no matter how negative, especially if the (generic) subject doesn't like it. If they were to object to us documenting their bad behavior, then we really should include it and block them. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:10, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah... No, we just had a talk about this that was unanimous oppose. The new information from this one group does not change policy. PackMecEng (talk) 12:48, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Not true, BullRangifer. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. That's extremely important. There's "RS" that say all sorts of horrific and repugnant things about the president - they don't all get shoved in the article just because you saw it on the Interwebz. I agree! Fortunately for me, I am very familiar with WP:POV and WP:BLPVIO, so I won't have to worry about throwing anything around "without knowing what it means." Nobody's attacking you personally by explaining that your content would likely be POV, though. And block...what, exactly? You lost me on that last part, I'm afraid. Hidden Tempo (talk) 01:40, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I still don’t see this in an encyclopedia while the person is alive as per previous discussion. But, I wish HT would stop making statements like: Gee, I wonder Dr. Post voted for?. First, not everyone takes every action according to their politics. Secondly, this suggests that a living person is acting unethically and is a BLP vio itself. Objective3000 (talk) 12:53, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Such commenting is not fine for Wikipedia. There is no significant change in Wikipedia rules and recommendations regarding articles on US presidents and other high-ranking politicians so far, BullRangifer. If you don't want to get problems according to those rules and recommendations, so please don't press for inclusion of partisan statements of some organisations, regardless of so-called RC. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 13:34, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Suggests to whom, you? Does this gentleman even have a BLP page? Saying that an opinion article and an interviewee for that article is biased is NOT a BLPVIO. Hidden Tempo (talk) 01:40, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

IMO this kind of remote diagnosing - "armchair psychiatry" - doesn't belong in this (or any) biographical article no matter what various professional associations may say. --MelanieN (talk) 17:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Hidden Tempo (talk) 01:40, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

It's not "armchair psychiatry". There is an enormous amount of scholarship on the Psychopathography of Adolf Hitler. The logical consequence of what you just said would mean that we would have to delete that article and every mention of his mental health from any other articles, regardless of the fact that historians and other scholars consider it to have great historical (and thus encyclopedic) significance. We also have many other articles that discuss the mental health of prominent political leaders; we even have a List of mentally ill monarchs. In the case of the leader of a country, the person's mental health is not merely a private matter, but it directly impacts the country and the world. Domestic, internal rules governing one particular profession within one particular country are of no concern to Wikipedia at all; Wikipedia is a global project, and it's based on reliable sources; reliable sources extensively and seriously discuss Trump's mental health and how it impacts the world. Thus there is no question that reliable sources consider the topic highly significant/relevant and worthy of coverage in an encyclopedic context. --Tataral (talk) 21:45, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, it's "armchair psychiatry" by definition. It may be valid. But, we require more. As for Hitler, we have had 80 years to analyze him. Objective3000 (talk) 00:05, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

And he's, you know, dead. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:11, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

As far as we know... PackMecEng (talk) 02:32, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Once there's an actual article from a psychiatrist that comments on Trump's mental health, I may support including something. The proceedings of a trade organization aren't relevant for the article at this time, though. Power~enwiki (talk) 17:25, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

There have been numerous such articles from psychologists[13] and psychiatrists.[14] IMO none of them should be referenced here. --MelanieN (talk) 18:59, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Wow. Those articles are far worse than I expected, I agree they have no place in this article. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:18, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I fail to see the logical connection between "commenting on Trump's mental health is fine" and "Wikipedia articles should include content about those comments". Two of us, at least, backed away from using the Goldwater rule as a basis in the previous discussion. We don't need it, never have. Thus this "significant change" changes nothing for us as Wikipedia editors. Show me the analysis of a professional who has examined him, then show me the secondary sources that lend it relevance, and I'll support inclusion of a little attributed content. What are the chances of that ever happening? Almost nil, which is why Wikipedia has never included this kind of content about an incumbent president of the U.S. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:59, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

which is why Wikipedia has never included this kind of content about an incumbent president… or about anyone. Perhaps we have psychiatric evaluations of convicted criminals if that's a significant part of the public record after the trial. Anything else is off-limits. — JFG ^talk 04:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Medical and mental health of Abraham Lincoln ―Mandruss ☎ 05:07, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Very informative, thanks! — JFG ^talk 05:32, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

His mental health has been very, very extensively covered by very high quality, serious sources; therefore it's perfectly appropriate to include material on this (clearly relevant and important) topic, and it would amount to political censorship to exclude it. There are good reasons for us to be careful in general about discussing people's mental health, but in some cases where it involves people who are extremely well known, who wield great power and where their mental health directly impacts the world through their decisions, and where there are a very significant amount of high quality reliable sources that discuss their mental health, it's appropriate for us to include such material as long as it's reliably sourced. We have entire articles devoted to the mental health of other political leaders. In the case of Trump, there are absolutely no policy-based reasons to exclude a reliably sourced discussion of his mental health, especially during his presidency where his mental health is obviously highly relevant to the world. --Tataral (talk) 21:37, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

The problem (actually just one of the problems) with any such proposal is that there is no such thing as a "reliable source" for information on this topic. Even the "best" available sources are opinions, based on reporting about a person's words and actions, from people who have some training or expertise in mental health but have never spoken to or even met the subject they are analyzing. Such opinions are little more than speculation, regardless of the level of training of the person making them, and are likely to be more influenced by the commenter's politics than by the actual state of the subject's mental health. That is why I oppose "armchair psychiatry" statements about ANY living person. --MelanieN (talk) 14:31, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Well said, I think that covers the topic really well. PackMecEng (talk) 14:42, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

• Absolutely not Because of the nature of psychoanalysis, there is inherently no such thing as a reliable source for this. All the so-called sources I've seen are opinion pieces. As such, they cannot be used for statements of fact, especially controversial statements about living people. BLP overrides everything else here, specifically WP:EXCEPTIONAL. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:16, 31 July 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.

False claim about a non-existent consensus regarding mental health coverage

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.

---

Mandruss has added a false claim about a non-existent consensus to "omit any opinions about Trump's psychology held by mental health academics or professionals who have not examined him."

The POV of one of the sides in an ongoing debate is not a "current consensus." There has never been any consensus in relation to this matter at all; I and other editors have for months argued for its inclusion and still do, and this is merely an unresolved issue, still under discussion (as in the most recent, currently active discussion, where opinions are divided), where we have not yet reached consensus in either direction. (In fact, if were to judge the discussion by valid policy-based opinions from people who actually have a sophisticated understanding of Wikipedia policies, there would rather be consensus to include some discussion of this matter, as the exclusion of this (exceedingly well reliably sourced) material really boils down to political censorship and WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT). --Tataral (talk) 16:05, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

A near-unanimous consensus to exclude mental health comments was reached a few weeks ago and properly documented in the consensus list as item #21: Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 65#Psychological make-up. The new discussion at #Commenting on Trump’s mental health is fine, psychiatry group says may change this consensus or reinforce it, but until that is settled, the prior consensus holds. — JFG ^talk 16:21, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

No, there has never been any "near-unanimous consensus". An active, ongoing discussion also trumps an older archived, little noticed discussion with few participants that I and other key participants in discussion of the matter in question missed. The situation now, based on the most recent discussion of the matter (above), is that there is no current consensus regarding the matter. The attempt to add the POV of one side in the debate as a "current consensus" is both blatantly false and disruptive, and we will have to consider removing the section entirely if it's abused in such a way. It's intended to list actual consensuses, not to be used as an instrument in an ongoing discussion by one of the sides of the debate. --Tataral (talk) 16:24, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion is merely a couple weeks old, and registered 6 Oppose with 0 Support except the OP; that's pretty much unanimous. Opening a new discussion does not trump this clear and recent result. Again, if and when the new discussion closes with support for inclusion, that will override the prior consensus; this process has happened before and works well, see for example items #15 and #16 which were superseded by later discussions. Now, please AGF and don't accuse fellow editors of abusing the consensus list. — JFG ^talk 16:38, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

The "consensus" reached by half a dozen editors is not binding. Furthermore, the specific request which came to that consensus was on the inclusion of a report on Trump's psychology, which presents a POV problem. We would need secondary sources that explain how he is viewed, rather than just the views of one or two people. And that's where it would be appropriate to mention the Goldwater rule, that subjects cannot be diagnosed without meeting with the practitioner. Whether or not opinions are included in this article depends on the degree of coverage in reliable secondary sources. Anyway, from what I have read, experts seem to agree that while they cannot make a conclusive determination without meeting Trump, that he shows higher levels of narcissism that most people, which is typical of people in high levels in business and politics. TFD (talk) 17:39, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

There's a clear consensus against all proposals that have been made so far, and I personally don't expect any proposal on this topic will be acceptable. If you have a specific proposal make one, but it must be discussed on the talk page before including it in the article. Whether this is "a consensus against including it" or simply "no consensus and any additions must be discussed on the talk page first" is a pointless argument over wording. Power~enwiki (talk) 17:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

There has been no attempt by anyone (that I'm aware of) to add it to the article without prior discussion. Everyone is aware that this is a contentious topic that would need (probably extensive) discussion about whether to include it and how to phrase it and weight and so on. But the section falsely claims that there is a consensus against including it, which is just false, citing one of probably a dozen or more archived discussions as "proof" (the one brief discussion that I and others overlooked during the past probably eight months or so, in the middle of my vacation in July), although the topic is now again the subject of a more recent and ongoing discussion. I expect this issue to develop quite a bit in the near future, as even more analyses and especially scholarly ones become available. Even if we don't reach a consensus to include it at this time, it's reasonable to assume that we will have to evaluate this matter in view of the sources and the situation again as the situation develops. The "current consensus" section attempts to hijack this issue by pretending the matter is settled once and for all, which is not the case. --Tataral (talk) 18:39, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Also, most prior discussions didn't result in any consensus in either direction, just in "no consensus." Which is not the same as a "clear consensus against." --Tataral (talk) 18:44, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

There is an existing consensus against such material. Consensus can change. But we just discussed this again in the past few days, in the section above (about the psychoanalytic society saying it was OK for its members to make such comments). In that discussion, two people favored including such material and eight opposed it. It looks as if consensus hasn't changed. --MelanieN (talk) 18:42, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

No, there is no existing consensus against. Since we started discussing the possible inclusion of such material last year or so, there has never been any consensus. We are also discussing this matter now, in an ongoing, active discussion, as opposed to overlooked archived discussions. --Tataral (talk) 18:44, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

The whole purpose of the "Consensuses" section above is so that we can document it when we reach a consensus, and easily reference it for purposes of removing anti-consensus material from the article. That doesn't mean we can't reopen a discussion, but while we do, the previous consensus holds. In fact we are discussing this very issue above, and can continue to do so. I don't really understand why you are trying so hard to deny there is a consensus, but it doesn't matter. Consensus can change, but so far there is no evidence at this page that it has changed. There is certainly no consensus at this time to include this kind of information. If you are trying to establish a basis for including it, the section above is the place to do so, presenting your arguments and evidence for inclusion. So far your position has not won much support. But simply insisting there isn't a consensus is getting you nowhere. --MelanieN (talk) 18:56, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Because the false claim (as in alternative facts) that there is a "consensus against" (when there is not and the situation has always been one of "no consensus") by the side in the debate opposed to including it is an attempt to enforce their POV and hijack the issue and discourage or prevent future discussions by making it appear, falsely, that the issue has somehow been settled because they managed, finally, in the middle of July to have a now archived little noticed discussion (one of countless on the topic) that I and others missed. --Tataral (talk) 19:06, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

As others have stated, there is indeed consensus against inclusion. Also noted by many others above, the consensus can change and very well might depending on the outcome of the discussion above. This is becoming disruptive. PackMecEng (talk) 19:14, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Tataral, quit beating your head against the wall about whether there is or is not a consensus. If the claim is false, just prove it - by demonstrating that there actually IS a consensus to do something else. There is a current discussion right now. Take your argument to include the material there - and quit wasting everyone's time over this "false claim" nonsense. --MelanieN (talk) 20:21, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

No, you are the one wasting people's time with your false claim of a non-existent "consensus" when there is none, although it doesn't surprise me. --Tataral (talk) 20:23, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Every comment by you thus far here is like an unfunny "yes it is! It isn't! It is!" Monty Python sketch. There is a past discussion by Wikipedia editors that decided that, for now, mental health coverage is out of bounds, that you disagree with it is 100% irrelevant. If you have reliable sources to show something new on the subject, and feel that you can change the minds of other editors, then by all means present it. TheValeyard (talk) 20:29, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion hasn't decided on anything. --Tataral (talk) 20:51, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

This "discussion" is going nowhere. I think it is time to stop replying. --MelanieN (talk) 20:59, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

MelanieN is correct, Tataral doesn't understand how the consensus process works (at this article or any article). "I and others disagree with the existing consensus, therefore there is no consensus" is frankly a position most often taken by noob editors (I took it once, back in the day), and I'm surprised to hear it from Tataral. Now, I don't dispute that there are stronger consensuses than this one; that's why I asked for other opinions about its strength at the end of the earlier discussion. I pinged only JFG, but anyone else could have opined at that point, and nobody challenged JFG's and my assessment that it was a list-worthy consensus. If we are to have a remotely orderly process, people can't come in 9 days after the close and object to it retroactively.
Anyway, even if no consensus existed to omit this content, there is no consensus to include it, either. Since the content is disputed, it stays out of the article until there is a consensus to include. Likewise, a new consensus to include it would replace the existing consensus to omit it, per WP:CCC. So we're battling over an inconsequential detail of process, which is a silly waste of our time. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:09, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

This should be tabled until this is no longer a BLP. And, I don't mean that to be snarky. Objective3000 (talk) 00:06, 31 July 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.

His faux military uniform

This article prominently displays Trump (in the very first picture after the infobox) in what looks like a military uniform, thereby giving the impression that he served his country in its military. In fact it's a fake "military-looking" uniform used by a private boarding school; we should point this out directly to avoid giving the casual reader the impression that he served in the military, which he actually never did. --Tataral (talk) 21:17, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

It's a military school uniform. There's nothing fake about it.- MrX 23:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Point of opening discussion about a suggested edit 10 minutes before making it? Anyway, this is way too much. I wouldn't oppose addition of , a private boarding school to the prose (not the caption), if you don't think the age 13 thing is hint enough. But we don't need the near equivalent of a big red banner, N O  M I L I T A R Y  S E R V I C E. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:07, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I think we could add "a private boarding school" to the description of the school. But no other disclaimer is needed. It is clearly a military-themed high school. Such schools are private; in the U.S. there is no such thing as a government military school below the level of the academies. (There is R.O.T.C. but that's something else.) In the U.S., military-style private schools are where parents send boys who are hard to handle. And I would hope anyone looking at that ridiculous uniform, complete with sash and epaulettes shoulder cord and multiple big shiny medals, would realize it is not an American military uniform. But not everyone is American and not everyone might know that, so I would support adding "a private boarding school" after the name of the institution in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 03:21, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I think the vast majority of people from Europe, or other parts of the world, would not automatically realize that this is not an American military uniform (or a uniform from fifty years back) by just looking at the picture. Lots of real American military uniforms look silly and garish, so if I didn't know that it wasn't a military uniform, I for one would assume that it was one. --Tataral (talk) 06:49, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

If a reader comes here to learn about Trump by looking at the pictures and reading the captions, their knowledge deficit goes far beyond his lack of military service. Sixth graders just can't be our target audience. You may have missed that MelanieN added the clarification to the prose. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:58, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

User:The Anome added to the picture caption the phrase "wearing a pseudo-military uniform". I reverted. I suggest they come here to the talk page to discuss it. We already added to the text the information that this is a private boarding school, which should eliminate any misunderstanding. I doubt if there the description "pseudo-military uniform" can be found in any Reliable Sources. --MelanieN (talk) 15:47, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

It's directly descriptive of the uniform in the picture. Trump's love of all things military is well known, and he takes every possible opportunity to associate himself with the military: this image, by itself, creates the misleading impression that Trump was a member of a military organization. Wikipedia should not mislead. If you do not like this, I suggest, and will now add, the alternative text "wearing the uniform of his private boarding school" -- The Anome (talk) 15:57, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

What would others think of that wording in the caption? I think it's unnecessary but I'll defer to consensus. --MelanieN (talk) 16:00, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Respectfully, Anome, I think it was out of line for you to add this while the concept of adding anything like this has been challenged and is under discussion here. I'm not going to revert, per the DS applicable on this page, but I suggest you self-revert until people have a chance to discuss this. --MelanieN (talk) 16:04, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't seen any need to do so. I can't see anything in the least critical of Trump in that wording; it's merely descriptive, and does not, in my opinion, convey any negative association. Captions should describe images in a neutral way, and this one does. If someone else wants to revert it, you are welcome to. -- The Anome (talk) 16:10, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

It's not a matter of "negative" or "positive" material; it's about "controversial" material, meaning material that has been challenged and is under discussion at the talk page. The DS restrictions apply to any challenged material, not just negative material. I will wait to see what kind of consensus develops here. @Tataral, MrX, and Mandruss: You had opinions on this subject earlier. How do you feel about Anome's addition to the caption? --MelanieN (talk) 16:23, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

• I don't think it was intended as such, but the wording can be interpreted to mean that Trump chose to dress up in a pseudo-military uniform, especially given his affinity for the military. I think "boarding school uniform" or even "military-style boarding school uniform" more accurately conveys to the reader that this was attire required by his academy, and not something Trump wore as a fashion. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:04, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes! I like the wording "military-style boarding school uniform". It clears up several possible misconceptions all at the same time. -- The Anome (talk) 19:13, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Pardon me, but I think it looks ridiculous and clunky, if the reader can't be bothered to read the article but instead make assumptions based off the picture than that's not the fault of Wikipedia. The current description is ugly and an eye-sour. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 04:41, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

• I'm happy with the current caption as amended by The Anome, to wit: Senior yearbook photo of Trump in 1964 wearing the uniform of his private boarding school, New York Military Academy I would tweak it for grammar, into: Senior yearbook photo of Trump (1964), wearing the uniform of his private boarding school, the New York Military Academy — JFG ^talk 17:12, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
• I don't think it's necessary to describe his clothes in a caption (it is helpful in the alt text). I can lice with "uniform of his private boarding school" though. I'm more concerned with '1964', for which I still can't verify in a source.- MrX 18:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm hsppy about taking out "1964". -- The Anome (talk) 19:14, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Give it time we're going to be talking about Trump's teeth next and if they're real or not. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 04:37, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Restore the Official White House Presidential Portrait

The current image used in the main infobox on this page is inadequate and improper as a representation of office of the U.S. President. The article originally included the official portrait which was removed due to lack of attribution. The recently uploaded image(File:Donald Trump Official Portrait.jpg) satisfies all requirements for proper attribution and use. There is absolutely no reason that the President's official portrait should not be restored to the infobox as every other president has his official portrait displayed. Joshualeverburg1 (talk) 08:33, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Donald Trump Official Portrait.jpg

I see no evidence this is free of the licensing issues discussed at c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Official portraits of Donald Trump. I believe the old image also had attribution to Coulter; that wasn't the issue. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:53, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Nominated for speedy deletion.- MrX 11:57, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Official Trump Portrait

There is no valid reason for the deletion of the image I uploaded and requested be added to the Donald Trump article. The attribution shows who the author is AND there are NO copyright issues per the White House AKA US GOVERNMENT >>>> https://www.whitehouse.gov/copyright. This is simply an abuse of power or is a big mistake as there are no issues with Trump's Portrait.

THE WHITE HOUSE WEBSITE STATES: Copyright Policy Pursuant to federal law, government-produced materials appearing on this site are not copyright protected. The United States Government may receive and hold copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise. Except where otherwise noted, third-party content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. Visitors to this website agree to grant a non-exclusive, irrevocable, royalty-free license to the rest of the world for their submissions to Whitehouse.gov under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. DMCA Notice The White House respects the intellectual property of others, and we ask users of our Web sites to do the same. In accordance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and other applicable law, we have adopted a policy of terminating, in appropriate circumstances and at our sole discretion, subscribers or account holders who are deemed to be repeat infringers. We may also at our sole discretion limit access to our Web site and/or terminate the accounts of any users who infringe any intellectual property rights of others, whether or not there is any repeat infringement. The portrait of Melania Trump is allowed on Wikipedia under the same circumstances thus the President's must be added too. Please remedy this issue and restore the image.Joshualeverburg1 (talk) 04:31, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

@Joshualeverburg1: Many editors agree with you but the copyright clerks have apparently received non-public information which prevents us from using this particular portrait. See prior discussions at c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Official portraits of Donald Trump and c:Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2017-06#Files in Category:Official portraits of Donald Trump. No idea why this was treated differently than the portraits of Mike Pence or Melania Trump. You may want to re-open the debate by filing an undeletion request at Commons:Undeletion requests. — JFG ^talk 05:50, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for edit-conflicting my less patient response. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:59, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: Thanks I will.Joshualeverburg1 (talk) 06:05, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: @JFG: @Joshualeverburg1: I have also just re-uploaded Official photo at WH.gov.jpg that photo at Commons. I don't know where it was originally found, but it's now on WH.gov, passing for all-the-world to me like an official photo on the POTUS page. Plus according to WH.gov's Copyright policy as has already been discussed:

  Pursuant to federal law, government-produced materials appearing on this site are not copyright protected. The United States Government may receive and hold copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise. Creative Commons License: Except where otherwise noted, third-party content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. Visitors to this website agree to grant a non-exclusive, irrevocable, royalty-free license to the rest of the world for their submissions to Whitehouse.gov under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

I relisted it under both US POTUS' Office use and CCA 3.0, as either or both may apply. So even with a possible OTRS, I'm not entirely sure if that image hasn't been transferred to the government by now. It would seem not only likely, but legally required. I'm also not sure, given the above, if the OTRS is even legally enforceable now. So I do agree that we need an update at Commons, as it should surprise no one that these things are pretty fluid right now. X4n6 (talk) 00:15, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

That was the wrong thing to do. There is zero evidence that a U.S. Government employee produced the image, and there is evidence that a photographer has claimed that he did not release the photo under a compatible license. See Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Official portraits of Donald Trump.- MrX 00:36, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

@X4n6: I don't know where it was originally found, but it's now on WH.gov - It was originally at WH.gov, exactly where it is now. Nothing of significance has changed as far as I can see, and I don't know how it's useful to keep re-litigating this again and again, by an endless succession of editors who weren't involved in the first deletion (and undeletion) debate and lack the motivation to read it and understand it. All of the necessary links have already been provided in this section, some of them multiple times. We get it; it was a controversial decision by the responding admin; but the decision was made, it was challenged using the established appeal process, and the challenge failed. That's due process by any measure, and at some point we need to review our Serenity Prayer and move on. That is, unless and until something has changed. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:38, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

@Mandruss: May I respectfully recommend that you begin that Serenity Prayer? How exactly will we know if anything has changed if we don't inquire? And are you saying that no decision by an admin can be challenged? Of course not. So I'm just not seeing your (clearly energetic) point here. But if consensus is that some folks want to relitigate it, it's their dime and that's in policy. So again, I'm just not seeing the downside. On a side note: that .gov photo is actually a helluva lot better than the one we're using now, which is frankly, kinda scary. Like a velvet Elvis whose eyes follow you around the room... X4n6 (talk) 00:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

are you saying that no decision by an admin can be challenged? - No. It can be challenged, it was challenged, and the challenge failed. As I said. Are we to allow it to be challenged again and again with no new arguments? if consensus is that some folks want to relitigate it - Where is this consensus? ―Mandruss ☎ 01:00, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

X4n6, if you want this photo reinstated you can contact the photographer and convince him to either license it under a compatible license or release it into the public domain. Those are really the only options.- MrX 01:05, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

@MrX: @Mandruss: I will ask two reasonable questions, then I'll happily suspend. 1) The federal government's website says pursuant to federal law anything on it is not copy-protected. So can someone explain to me why that doesn't "trump" any copyright claim? 2) It also says that "except where otherwise noted" 3rd party content is licensed under a CCA 3.0. So in the absense of anything on the website exempting the photo, we've assumed the government website is wrong about the law - or the law simply doesn't apply? I'm not looking for a debate. But since you folks seem versed in the provenance, I'm just trying to get a simple, dispassionate explanations. Thanks. X4n6 (talk) 01:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Respectfully, I lack the energy to answer questions that are already answered in the Commons debates linked herein. I wouldn't trust myself to get the answers exactly right anyway, as I'm no expert in this area. But your questions look exactly like questions I remember from those debates. They were heard, considered, and rejected in the end. I apologize for being a bit too - aggressive? - in my first response. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:36, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

@X4n6: 1. You have misquoted the notice on the website. It actually says "government-produced materials appearing on this site are not copyright protected". The photograph was taken before there was a Trump administation and there is no evidence whatsoever that the photographer was a U.S. government employee at the time it was taken. 2. The photographer has refuted that whitehouse.gov has the right to re-license his photograph and has demanded (presumably under DMCA safe harbor) that we remove it, so we did.- MrX 01:47, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

@MrX: Just as I was replying to Mandruss I saw your explanation. Fascinating. So it sounds like the photographer's claim originates with the administration. But we received a cease and desist, which we opted, as we always do, in an abundance of caution, to respect. Now that makes sense. Many thanks. I'll presume we're monitoring the situation for such a time as when an official photo, either this or another, becomes available. Because again, I can't imagine that anyone, regardless of political stripe, can be particularly fond of the one we're using now. Thanks again. X4n6 (talk) 02:15, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Link-ifying "45th" in the Infobox?

I've seen a bunch of edits adding and removing this link (on line 8). I wanted to add a comment regarding the existence of consensus on this point, but there does not appear to be an existing consensus; Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_61#Infobox_.26_45th_linkage. definitely doesn't have one. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:59, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think there is a consensus, placing the consensus burden on those who want the link (per the ArbCom remedies). But, since you have started the discussion, we might as well establish the consensus. I Oppose the link per WP:EGG and WP:SEAOFBLUE. I also Oppose the same link in the first sentence per WP:EGG.
I don't see the point of the links anyway. Does somebody think we need them to prove that Trump is, in fact, the 45th president? "See? It says so right there in this list!!" If so, that's not how verifiability works; Wikipedia cannot be its own source. Or, is there some informational value to providing the names of the other 44, none of whom this article is about?
Bottom line, some people just like to link stuff. Wikilinks are so cool. That is at odds with this sentence in the lead of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking: "Appropriate links provide instant pathways to locations within and outside the project that are likely to increase readers' understanding of the topic at hand." I'll look forward to hearing how these links increase a reader's understanding of Donald Trump's life. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:37, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree that we should get a consensus now, I've re-worded my initial post slightly. I abstain from voting. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:51, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose – It's overkill and distracting in the infobox. This should be a guideline in the {{Infobox officeholder}} template.[16] However, the link in the lede sentence is informative and does not violate WP:SEAOFBLUE; I'd keep that one. — JFG ^talk 06:02, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

• @JFG: That edit seems premature and overbold before this discussion concludes, considering that (1) you already know the issue is controversial and (2) you can't be reverted per BRD by any editor lacking the template-edit user right. (That is, unless you're prepared to self-revert because another editor disputes the edit, which I do.) I think there should be a prior consensus on the template's talk page, where I would argue for citing both SEAOFBLUE and EGG. But I don't think it's constructive to carry on both discussions at the same time; what would happen if the two consensuses were in conflict? ―Mandruss ☎ 06:46, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Sure, this can be construed as overbold, but on the other hand it's only a recommendation, not a prescription. I'd leave the edit there and see if there's any pushback at the template page. Then, after the present discussion is closed, I'll happily open a second one at the template talk, citing the outcome of this one, whatever it is. — JFG ^talk 06:56, 28 July 2017 (UTC)