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, 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)