Talk:Donald Trump

Open RfCs and surveys

• #Religion "honored to have a Jewish daughter"
• #Proposed versions of travel ban description in the lede

NOTE: It is recommended to link to this list in your edit summary when reverting, as:
[[Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensus|current consensus]] item [n]
To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to .

01. Use the official White House portrait as the infobox image. (Dec 2016, Jan 2017, Oct 2017, March 2020) (temporarily suspended by #19 following copyright issues on the inauguration portrait, enforced when an official public-domain portrait was released on 31 October 2017)

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

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

04. Superseded by #15

Lead phrasing of Trump "gaining a majority of the U.S. Electoral College" and "receiving a smaller share of the popular vote nationwide", without quoting numbers. (Nov 2016, Dec 2016) (Superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)

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

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

07. Superseded by #35

Include "Many of his public statements were controversial or false." in the lead. (Sep 2016, February 2017, wording shortened per April 2017, upheld with July 2018) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019)

08. Superseded by unlisted consensus

Mention that Trump is the first president elected "without prior military or government service". (Dec 2016, superseded Nov 2024)

09. Include a link to Trump's Twitter account in the "External links" section. (Jan 2017) Include a link to an archive of Trump's Twitter account in the "External links" section. (Jan 2021)

10. Canceled

Keep Barron Trump's name in the list of children and wikilink it, which redirects to his section in Family of Donald Trump per AfD consensus. (Jan 2017, Nov 2016) Canceled: Barron's BLP has existed since June 2019. (June 2024)

11. Superseded by #17

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

12. The article title is Donald Trump, not Donald J. Trump. (RM Jan 2017, RM June 2019)

13. Auto-archival is set for discussions with no comments for 14 days. Manual archival is allowed for (1) closed discussions, 24 hours after the closure, provided the closure has not been challenged, and (2) "answered" edit requests, 24 hours after the "answer", provided there has been no follow-on discussion after the "answer". (Jan 2017) (amended with respect to manual archiving, to better reflect common practice at this article) (Nov 2019)

14. Omit mention of Trump's alleged bathmophobia/fear of slopes. (Feb 2017)

15. Superseded by lead rewrite

Supersedes #4. There is no consensus to change the formulation of the paragraph which summarizes election results in the lead (starting with "Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, …"). Accordingly the pre-RfC text (Diff 8 Jan 2017) has been restored, with minor adjustments to past tense (Diff 11 Feb 2018). No new changes should be applied without debate. (RfC Feb 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017, Feb 2017) In particular, there is no consensus to include any wording akin to "losing the popular vote". (RfC March 2017) (Superseded by local consensus on 26 May 2017 and lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017)

16. Superseded by lead rewrite

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

17. Superseded by #50

Supersedes #11. The lead paragraph is "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current president of the United States. Before entering politics, he was a businessman and television personality." The hatnote is simply {{Other uses}}. (April 2017, RfC April 2017, April 2017, April 2017, April 2017, July 2017, Dec 2018) Amended by lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017 and removal of inauguration date on 4 July 2018. Lower-case "p" in "president" per Dec 2018 and MOS:JOBTITLES RfC Oct 2017. Wikilinks modified per April 2020. Wikilink modified again per July 2020. "45th" de-linked. (Jan 2021)

18. Superseded by #63

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

19. Obsolete

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

20. Mention protests in the lead section with this exact wording: His election and policies have sparked numerous protests. (June 2017, May 2018) (Note: In February 2021, when he was no longer president, the verb tense was changed from "have sparked" to "sparked", without objection.)

21. Superseded by #39

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

22. Do not call Trump a "liar" in Wikipedia's voice. Falsehoods he uttered can be mentioned, while being mindful of calling them "lies", which implies malicious intent. (RfC Aug 2017, upheld by RfC July 2024)

23. Superseded by #52

The lead includes the following sentence: Trump ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, citing security concerns; after legal challenges, the Supreme Court upheld the policy's third revision. (Aug 2017, Nov 2017, Dec 2017, Jan 2018, Jan 2018) Wording updated (July 2018) and again (Sep 2018).

24. Superseded by #30

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

25. In citations, do not code the archive-related parameters for sources that are not dead. (Dec 2017, March 2018)

26. Do not include opinions by Michael Hayden and Michael Morell that Trump is a "useful fool […] manipulated by Moscow" or an "unwitting agent of the Russian Federation". (RfC April 2018)

27. State that Trump falsely claimed that Hillary Clinton started the Barack Obama birther rumors. (April 2018, June 2018)

28. Include, in the Wealth section, a sentence on Jonathan Greenberg's allegation that Trump deceived him in order to get on the Forbes 400 list. (June 2018, June 2018)

29. Include material about the Trump administration family separation policy in the article. (June 2018)

30. Supersedes #24. The lead includes: "Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist." (RfC Sep 2018, Oct 2018, RfC May 2019)

31. Do not mention Trump's office space donation to Jesse Jackson's Rainbow/Push Coalition in 1999. (Nov 2018)

32. Omit from the lead the fact that Trump is the first sitting U.S. president to meet with a North Korean supreme leader. (RfC July 2018, Nov 2018)

33. Do not mention "birtherism" in the lead section. (RfC Nov 2018)

34. Refer to Ivana Zelníčková as a Czech model, with a link to Czechs (people), not Czechoslovakia (country). (Jan 2019)

35. Superseded by #49

Supersedes #7. Include in the lead: Trump has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency. The statements have been documented by fact-checkers, and the media have widely described the phenomenon as unprecedented in American politics. (RfC Feb 2019)

36. Superseded by #39

Include one paragraph merged from Health of Donald Trump describing views about Trump's psychology expressed by public figures, media sources, and mental health professionals who have not examined him. (June 2019) (paragraph removed per RfC Aug 2019 yielding consensus #39)

37. Resolved: Content related to Trump's presidency should be limited to summary-level about things that are likely to have a lasting impact on his life and/or long-term presidential legacy. If something is borderline or debatable, the resolution does not apply. (June 2019)

38. Do not state in the lead that Trump is the wealthiest U.S. president ever. (RfC June 2019)

39. Supersedes #21 and #36. Do not include any paragraph regarding Trump's mental health or mental fitness for office. Do not bring up for discussion again until an announced formal diagnosis or WP:MEDRS-level sources are provided. This does not prevent inclusion of content about temperamental fitness for office. (RfC Aug 2019, July 2021)

40. Include, when discussing Trump's exercise or the lack thereof: He has called golfing his "primary form of exercise", although he usually does not walk the course. He considers exercise a waste of energy, because he believes the body is "like a battery, with a finite amount of energy" which is depleted by exercise. (RfC Aug 2019)

41. Omit book authorship (or lack thereof) from the lead section. (RfC Nov 2019)

42. House and Senate outcomes of the impeachment process are separated by a full stop. For example: He was impeached by the House on December 18, 2019, for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. He was acquitted of both charges by the Senate on February 5, 2020. (Feb 2020)

43. The rules for edits to the lead are no different from those for edits below the lead. For edits that do not conflict with existing consensus: Prior consensus is NOT required. BOLD edits are allowed, subject to normal BRD process. The mere fact that an edit has not been discussed is not a valid reason to revert it. (March 2020)

44. The lead section should mention North Korea, focusing on Trump's meetings with Kim and some degree of clarification that they haven't produced clear results. (RfC May 2020)

45. Superseded by #48

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

46. Use the caption "Official portrait, 2017" for the infobox image. (Aug 2020, Jan 2021)

47. Do not mention Trump's net worth or Forbes ranking (or equivalents from other publications) in the lead, nor in the infobox. (Sep 2020)

48. Supersedes #45. Trump's reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic should be mentioned in the lead section. There is no consensus on specific wording, but the status quo is Trump reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic; he minimized the threat, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, and promoted false information about unproven treatments and the availability of testing. (Oct 2020, RfC Aug 2020)

49. Supersedes #35. Include in lead: Trump has made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics. (Dec 2020)

50. Supersedes #17. The lead sentence is: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. (March 2021), amended (July 2021), inclusion of politician (RfC September 2021)

51. Include in the lead that many of Trump's comments and actions have been characterized as misogynistic. (Aug 2021 and Sep 2021)

52. Supersedes #23. The lead should contain a summary of Trump's actions on immigration, including the Muslim travel ban (cf. item 23), the wall, and the family separation policy. (September 2021)

53. The lead should mention that Trump promotes conspiracy theories. (RfC October 2021)

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

55. Regarding Trump's comments on the 2017 far-right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, do not wiki-link "Trump's comments" in this manner. (RfC December 2021)

56. Retain the content that Trump never confronted Putin over its alleged bounties against American soldiers in Afghanistan but add context. Current wording can be altered or contextualized; no consensus was achieved on alternate wordings. (RfC November 2021) Trump's expressions of doubt regarding the Russian Bounties Program should be included in some capacity, though there there is no consensus on a specific way to characterize these expressed doubts. (RfC March 2022)

57. Do not mention in the lead Gallup polling that states Trump's the only president to never reach 50% approval rating. (RfC January 2022)

58. Use inline citations in the lead for the more contentious and controversial statements. Editors should further discuss which sentences would benefit from having inline citations. (RfC May 2022, discussion on what to cite May 2022)

59. Do not label or categorize Trump as a far-right politician. (RfC August 2022)

60. Insert the links described in the RfC January 2023.

61. When a thread is started with a general assertion that the article is biased for or against Trump (i.e., without a specific, policy-based suggestion for a change to the article), it is to be handled as follows:

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

This does not apply to posts that are clearly in bad faith, which are to be removed on sight. (May 2023)

62. The article's description of the five people who died during and subsequent to the January 6 Capitol attack should avoid a) mentioning the causes of death and b) an explicit mention of the Capitol Police Officer who died. (RfC July 2023)

63. Supersedes #18. The alma mater field of the infobox reads: "University of Pennsylvania (BS)". (September 2023)

64. Omit the {{Very long}} tag. (January 2024)

65. Mention the Abraham Accords in the article; no consensus was achieved on specific wordings. (RfC February 2024)

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

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

Religion

Referring to his daughter Ivanka's conversion to Judaism before her marriage to Kushner, Trump said: "I have a Jewish daughter; and I am very honored by that."

User:JFG restored the above to the section about Trump's religion, claiming it is "very relevant, especially given baseless accusations of anti-semitism against Trump." So, firstly, how is this quote relevant? And secondly, where is the accusation of anti-semitism? zzz (talk) 04:46, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

1. You removed this long-standing sentence saying it was "irrelevant", the onus is on you to demonstrate its irrelevancy. 2. Accusations of Trump being a bigoted racist anti-semite borderline Nazi are all over the press; we even have a long section about such allegations in this very article. Not that we need to give them even more emphasis. The fact that Trump welcomed and embraced his daughter's conversion to Judaism is therefore ominously relevant. — JFG ^talk 04:59, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Let's get real. Trump is populist. If he has an audience he thinks would like to hear something that seems anti-Semitic, that's what he'll say. Of course he will also say that what his daughter does is fine. Consistency is not his forte. HiLo48 (talk) 05:03, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

1: Ok, It is irrelevant because it tells us nothing about Trump's religion or religious views (or anything else). I thought that was obvious, but now I have spelt it out for you. 2: The word "anti-semitism" is not even mentioned anywhere in the article. zzz (talk) 05:05, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for spelling it out, that helps understand your perspective. I would argue that this fact does tell us something about Trump's religious views, namely that he is not strictly confined to his own religion, and shows tolerance (call it populism if you will). About point 2, that's a good thing. — JFG ^talk 05:09, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I would have hoped you'd have checked DUE WEIGHT to see whether this offhand remark to a Brooklyn Jewish weekly has been widely cited, acknowledged, discussed, or in any other way validated as significant WP article content. Rather disappointing to see it knee-jerked back in without any attention to all the reasons it didn't belong in the article in the first place. SPECIFICO talk 03:03, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Tolerance and populism are very different things. The former is a real, positive sentiment. The latter is purely politics, and can be a complete lie. HiLo48 (talk) 02:19, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

He's "not strictly confined to his own religion" because he didn't disown his daughter? That seems like original research. And this being proof that he is tolerant, or not anti-semitic, also seems like original research (as well as irrelevant, since anti-semitism is not even mentioned in this article). zzz (talk) 05:21, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

The relevant point is not that he "didn't disown his daughter", it's that when commenting on his daughter's conversion, he expressed a view on religion. That makes it relevant in this section of his bio. — JFG ^talk 05:32, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

"I am very honoured": that is not a view on religion. zzz (talk) 05:35, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Weak exclude. There are similar quotes of him saying "I have a Jewish daughter", of him mentioning he has Jewish grandchildren, and of Ivanka saying he supported her conversion. I'd want to avoid debates arguing whether 'relevant' which seem OR, so will say it's google count indicates too small to include so UNDUE and should not→ be included. But ... being his daughter I could see it might be taken as acceptable too. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:12, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Exclude - It's just a vapid comment along the lines of "some of my best friends are black". It's not encyclopedic.- MrX 🖋 11:14, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Exclude - This is another example of a meaningless (at best) snippet of self-serving primary narrative that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia without wide coverage, secondary discussion and evaluation, and plenty of context. As experienced editors, surely we know WP is not the place to answer some unstated "anti-Semitic" charge with this standard response of the classic anti-Semite. Aside from anything else, it only makes Trump look bad. And "honored to have a (fill in the blank... Jewish daughter, Maserati, Friend in North Korea, new hairpiece...) is just vacuous drivel that degrades the biography of an important public figure. Honored? What? Like she might not get into the sorority because what? It tells us nothing about Trump with respect to religion. SPECIFICO talk 13:21, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Exclude - Whether it’s long-standing or not is irrelevant in this case. The section is about his religion, not his views of other people’s religions; it hasn’t been called "religious views" since 05:11, 20 Mar 17. @JFG: Your argument for keeping it is a tad POVish; you’re saying it’s needed to refute the "allegations in this very article" "of Trump being a bigoted racist anti-semite borderline Nazi" because it shows tolerance. If anywhere, it belongs in Public profile -> Racial views; he has said and tweeted numerous times that he’s "the least anti-Semitic person that you’ve ever seen in your entire life," and, also, "the least racist person" (New York mag). That’s the "I cant’ be racist/homophobic/anti-semitic because some of my best friends are black, gay, Jewish" argument. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:04, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

• Include somewhere. I thought it was good in the Religion section (he has said very little about his religious beliefs, but this suggests that tolerance is one of them) but it could be moved to the Racial views section. --MelanieN (talk) 16:43, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
• Include - ironic that it appears to be ok to include the views of others but not ok to include Trump’s own views about race and religion. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:07, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude, but don't really care all that much - Honestly, it doesn't seem to add anything of value. It isn't even an adequate example of Trump expressing his views on religion. Nor is it doing any real harm being in the article. My preference would be to exclude it on the grounds that it is pointless having it, but I'm not going to complain if it's left in. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:13, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude - Meh. It only suggests he supports his daughter. I don't think anyone has claimed otherwise. O3000 (talk) 17:16, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
• Include This should be included somewhere in the article, but I can understand why some might prefer it in "Racial views" rather than religion. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:39, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

• Emir, could you explain what you think Trump means by being "very honored" by his daughter's religious beliefs? I mean, she didn't convert to Trumpism. I seriously don't know what the sentence means. Maybe there's more context that would clarify? SPECIFICO talk 20:04, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

^^Bad taste.^^ C'mon, you know what it means. Attempts to pigeonhole people typically backfires - leave it be. We cite what the sources say, the material is relevant, and there's no such think as Trumpism anymore than there is Obamaism; primarily beliefs of the young and impressionable who are still actively fighting "causes". Like the moon, the latter wanes over time. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:46, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, nobody has the slightest idea what that means, and if you or anyone else has a clue they would already have explained it to us so we might reconsider removing it. Is it like "I am honored that my wife is wearing Obsessed. I am honored my dog chases rabbits? I am honored my son likes FroYo? I'm confident that if you had any convincing answer you would have advanced your argument by explaining it to us. And it can't be that Trump thinks everything honors him, because that would mean we'd need to add all kinds of stuff to the article. I am honored Trudeau eats sloppy poutine. I am honored that Kim shaves half his head... SPECIFICO talk 22:21, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

We're all ears, Atsme. SPECIFICO talk 01:20, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Put the ears away - your eyes are what's needed since reading is involved, beginning with the arguments for include which are far more convincing than those to exclude. We write about the notable/relevant material (quotes, statements of fact) that have been published by RS, and the subject of this discussion falls right in line with that guideline. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:12, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

• Include in the religion section. There is no need to quibble over the significance of the word "honored". It is a positive response. It is a response in the affirmative. That is the point. It displays the quality of tolerance. Many charges surround Trump. Anything from antisemitism to Islamophobia to racism. But here we see an instance of Trump displaying tolerance. I think it should be included. He is Christian and his daughter converted to Judaism therefore the placement in the religion section seems correct to me. Bus stop (talk) 23:04, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

• That's entirely OR, and therefore irrelevant to what's being discussed here. SPECIFICO talk 01:20, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

• SPECIFICO—your "Exclude" reasoning is quite convoluted. You say "As experienced editors, surely we know WP is not the place to answer some unstated "anti-Semitic" charge with this standard response of the classic anti-Semite. Aside from anything else, it only makes Trump look bad." His comment is a positive comment. It doesn't make Trump look bad. You are reading into it in an unreasonable way. It is a relatively straightforward comment. "Honor" means "to regard with great respect" according to dictionary.com. It is your examples that are ridiculous, not Trump's use of the word. Honored that he has a "new hairpiece"? "I am honored my dog chases rabbits"? Just because you offer ridiculous uses for the word "honored" doesn't mean Trump is saying anything other than what he is saying. The section of the article under discussion is the "religion" section. Although he is Christian his daughter married a Jew and converted to Judaism and the non-Jewish father (Trump) is saying that he is "honored" that his daughter converted to another religion. You can call it original research but that is almost a classic example of an act or a statement displaying the trait of "tolerance". Furthermore I'm not arguing that we say for instance in the article that this shows his "tolerant" nature—so how is it "original research"? If this being said on a Talk page is "original research" then your saying that "it only makes Trump look bad" would be "original research" too, wouldn't it? Bus stop (talk) 02:40, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

On WP we follow WP:WEIGHT. This meaningless curtsy to the Jewish readers of a fringy Brooklyn Jewish weekly newspaper, so obscure that it gets only 300 google search returns, (almost all non-RS), is of no significance at all and should never have been put in the article. Content in an article such as this has tens or hundreds of thousands of citation listings in a google search. SPECIFICO talk 02:58, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

• Include, absolutely. Seems silly to even have to have a !vote for it. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:16, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
• Include. It seems to be a major point of interest as to what Trump's various bigotries and prejudices are. Therefore, it's notable enough to include for that reason. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:21, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude regardless of the importance of the controversies around Trump, this quote or Trump's response to Ivanka's conversion has not been covered much (in relation to the controversies or not), so it doesn't have enough weight to be here. Galobtter (pingó mió) 01:47, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude The words that come from Trump are so inconsistent they demonstrate nothing about his true beliefs. HiLo48 (talk) 02:21, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
• Include: It's a direct quote by Donald Trump about religion in a section about religion. It's sourced. So it seems well worthy of inclusion to me. Whether one can infer from his quote that it portrays him in a good or a bad light is irrelevant. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 16:45, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

• @NoMoreHeroes: There are thousands of direct Trump quotes that can be found in reliable sources. In fact, many of his individual quotes are found in multiple sources. Are you suggesting that include all of his direct quotes in this article, or can you offer a reason for including this one found in only one source, while excluding many others?- MrX 🖋 18:50, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

• @MrX: You misinterpreted my comment. I support including quotes from Donald Trump, reported by at least one reliable source, that pertain to his religious views, in the Religion section of his biography. I think the quote in question satisfies this criteria. If you find other quotes that follow this pattern and include them, I won't object. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 20:04, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you for clarifying your position. I didn't intentionally misrepresent you, although I may have misinterpreted your comment. I'm still not sure how Trump feeling honored about his (converted) Jewish daughter is a statement of his religious views.- MrX 🖋 20:19, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

• Exclude in marginal situations, it's almost never worth including a Trump quote. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:27, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

• Exclude the killer argument here seems to me to be how little the comment - or subject - has been picked up by sources. The fact that everyone is furiously engaging in speculation here about what the comment means or shows, or why he said it is indicative to me of the vagueness and vapidity of his original comment. As for 'balancing' criticisms of his views on race or religion - that argument might be valid if we had content about him being criticised for antisemitism, we don't AFAIK. Pincrete (talk) 10:23, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

You say "everyone is furiously engaging in speculation here about what the comment means or shows". I am not assigning meaning or significance to the comment so much as I am countering claims about the meaning of the comment. There is a distinction between a Talk page and article space. We do not assign meaning to anything or speculate about anything in article space—unless such an assertion is supported by a reliable source. But on a Talk page people can present their reasoning in support of inclusion or omission. Have I speculated about what the comment means? Yes, in response to arguments that dismissed the comment on various grounds. This constitutes normal use of a Talk page. I think the important question is do we speculate about what a comment or other material means in article space? And the answer to that is that no, we do not. Your observation that "everyone is furiously engaging in speculation here about what the comment means or shows"—is simply an observation about the way Talk pages are used. You express that you find the comment "vague" and "vapid". Maybe I'm unusual but I don't find the observation that a non-Jewish man is "honored" to have a Jewish daughter and Jewish grandchildren to be vague and vapid. I think that that comment is of appropriate specificity, therefore not vague. And I think it is both admirable and heartening and not vapid. But different vehicles' mileage may vary. You also express concern over the degree to which sources other than the ones we've cited have "picked up" the comment, but I don't think it is necessarily an enormous concern of ours whether or not whatever sources you have in mind have covered this comment or not. Is it reliably sourced? That is our primary concern. And the answer to that is yes, this material is adequately supported by sources. Bus stop (talk) 13:51, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say there was anything wrong about speculating on talk - and the range of reactions here is indicative of how variously the comment can be taken. In case 'vapid' didn't give it away, I lean more towards the "some of my best friends are black" level of significance. The most you could construct out of it is that he isn't a traditional WASP who is insensitive to ALL minorities, but I don't think anyone has said he is. His comments can just as easily be taken as indicating how fundamentally irreligious Trump is as how tolerant he is - religion as a lifestyle choice, with no sense of religion's importance to believers, or indication of what his own belief system is. MelanieM linked to a very critical opinion piece in Haaretz about the choice of preacher for the new Jerusalem embassy - a hell and brimstone preacher - who thinks just about everyone is going to hell (inc Jews) - if they don't follow 'the true path'. The only way I can see of squaring these contradictions is by relying on the weight of analysis given to the topic in RS - and there is minimal coverage of this. Pincrete (talk) 17:22, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

You say "MelanieM linked to a very critical opinion piece in Haaretz about the choice of preacher for the new Jerusalem embassy - a hell and brimstone preacher - who thinks just about everyone is going to hell (inc Jews) - if they don't follow 'the true path'. The only way I can see of squaring these contradictions is by relying on the weight of analysis given to the topic in RS - and there is minimal coverage of this. You are referring to this source, posted by MelanieN in this post about Robert Jeffress speaking at the Embassy of the United States, Jerusalem. It is your contention that there is a "contradiction" which should prevent us from including the material under discussion. My counterargument would be that we don't necessarily omit what some may perceive as personal inconsistencies from biographies. Bus stop (talk) 13:21, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

• Include somewhere in the article per NPOV. It is straight from the horses mouth about a member of his family converting to another faith. It is completely relevant.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:07, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude; this isn't the article about Ivanka, and the rationale here seems to be pure WP:SYNTH. No sources seem to support the notion that this factoid says anything particularly important about Trump personally. --Aquillion (talk) 15:48, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

"this isn't the article about Ivanka" No, it's the article about the father. "the rationale here seems to be pure WP:SYNTH" This is a Talk page. The "rationale here" is not being placed in the article, is it? Bus stop (talk) 16:41, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

• Exclude: not relevant to the Religion section; trivial. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:31, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
• Include per per MelanieN. L293D (☎ • ✎) 01:22, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude generic quote; trivial. There are many famous Trump quotes - this is not one of them. As Pincrete noted, this has scarcely been discussed or analyzed by the set of existing sources, and that, to me, is the crucial argument. Neutrality^talk 20:04, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
• Include One of the few times he has really addressed his views on religion. It gives useful insight into his thoughts. PackMecEng (talk) 21:13, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Not in my reckoning. But mind reading, by you or me, is a lousy reason to add anything to an article. HiLo48 (talk) 01:00, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Since PackMecEng has not violated policy, nit-picking his reasoning for a !vote to add content is really not helpful, HiLo48. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:41, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Looking over the source, he was specifically asked how he felt about having a Jewish daughter. The quotes given there certainly seem to show how he feels. It could be BS but that is not for us to judge. PackMecEng (talk) 01:56, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

There is no evidence whatsoever that its how Trump felt about his newly Jewish daughter. He is a politician remember. They lie. We can write precisely what Trump said, in answer to precisely which question, buy we cannot say that it gives us any insight at all about his thoughts on religion. And to those who seem to feel that Trump needs their defence, I would say the same about almost any politician. HiLo48 (talk) 03:28, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

The article is from February 2015, before he even started his campaign. So he was not a politician at the time. We also cannot just randomly prescribe they must be lying because of X if the source is not making that declaration. No one here is saying Trump needs defense, that is off-topic. PackMecEng (talk) 03:34, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

You certainly seem to be trying to defend him. And misrepresent me. I DID NOT say Trump was lying. You either know that and are deliberately arguing against a straw man, or have failed to properly read what I wrote. I will not repeat what I said. It's there for all those who actually want to see the truth and the logic of it. HiLo48 (talk) 03:52, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. PackMecEng (talk) 03:54, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

HiLo48—you are saying "There is no evidence whatsoever that its how Trump felt about his newly Jewish daughter. He is a politician remember. They lie. I think it gives us insights into his thoughts just as any other utterance gives us insights into anyone's thoughts. There is no final, conclusive, ultimate, significance to anything anyone says. We speak to provide a listener with a suggestion of how we feel about a certain topic or even related topics. I will concede that we speak for a multitude of reasons. But this is pretty much true of all people in all circumstances. Multiple interpretations of spoken comments are more the norm than an exception. Bus stop (talk) 11:42, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

That seems to support what HiLo48 was saying. O3000 (talk) 12:05, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

"He is a politician remember. They lie." We all tell lies. Are we only going to make a fuss over that which politicians say? Bus stop (talk) 12:34, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

"He is a politician remember. They lie." Deciding whether or not an article subject is lying is out of our scope as editors, not to mention it's POV behavior and incompatible to the purpose of Wikipedia. Such an attitude in relation to how we edit has no place here. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:44, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

And if I had said that Trump was definitely lying, your comment may have some relevance. FFS, if there was a gold medal for misrepresentation, a bunch of you here would be finalists every time. I suggest everyone again read what I actually said, then think about it, then try commenting again. HiLo48 (talk) 22:11, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

HiLo48—you said "There is no evidence whatsoever that its how Trump felt about his newly Jewish daughter." But tell me, what kind of evidence could possibly exist that he feels genuinely "honored" to have a Jewish daughter? Do we ever require "evidence" for the expressed feelings of the subjects of biographies? Bus stop (talk) 23:27, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

There can be none, and that has been my point all along. We can write what he said, as an exact quotation, but we cannot ever know what he is thinking. Too many comments in this thread have been suggesting that people do know what he is thinking. HiLo48 (talk) 02:34, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

"know what he is thinking" He is thinking that "I have a Jewish daughter and I am very honored by that."[1][2] Aren't you raising doubts about what is a simple and straightforward assertion? Bus stop (talk) 03:34, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes. HiLo48 (talk) 03:39, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Please, read the source! This has been brought up by more than one editor (MrX, for one) in this very discussion. Trump wasn't asked how he felt about his Jewish daughter. According to the source, Trump was asked how he felt about being the grandfather of Jewish children, and he immediately switched the narrative to Ivanka. He has said many times how proud he is of her in contexts other than religion (her looks, her accomplishments - in that order). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:05, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

And the sentence right after covers the conversion. The original question was about the grandchildren, he mentions that and segue into his daughter. Right after the article talks about her conversion and continues his praise of her "he proudly stated about his daughter Ivanka, who converted to Judaism in 2009, “I have a Jewish daughter, it wasn’t in the plan but I am very glad it happened.”" So yeah, perhaps could be worded better but still supported by the source. PackMecEng (talk) 14:23, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Sources support him saying "I have a Jewish daughter and I am very honored by that."[3][4] That is the crux of the matter. I think it is farfetched to find WP:SYNTH in the relation between the introductory words in the article and that quote, but that is the claim made by MrX. Bus stop (talk) 14:49, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Sourcing and due weight?

Get real folks. A google search on "I have a Jewish daughter; and I am very honored by that" returns about 300 hits. 300 - that's it. This statement was in an interview Trump gave The Jewish Voice, a rather activist conservative Jewish weekly publication. This bit is a cherrypicked, meaningless and undue quote from Trump when he was trying to court votes in advance of the Republican primaries. It means nothing, it signifies nothing, it proves nothing, it is not fit for an encyclopedia article. SPECIFICO talk 01:33, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

It's hard to take anyone's sentiment for inclusion seriously when these opinions appear to reflect nothing but their OR about the subject and nothing related to the source, due weight, or the context. This cherrypicked snippet is no different than Hilary confiding in the Pulaski Queen in Milwaukee that she craves kielbasa at midnight or thousands of similar little nothings. SPECIFICO talk 02:05, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

You say "Get real folks." Thank you for your folksy observations. You say " This statement was in an interview Trump gave The Jewish Voice, a rather activist conservative Jewish weekly publication. This bit is a cherrypicked, meaningless and undue quote from Trump when he was trying to court votes in advance of the Republican primaries. It means nothing, it signifies nothing, it proves nothing, it is not fit for an encyclopedia article." In my opinion it is valid and relevant. You confuse original research with "argument". A Talk page is for presenting one's case for a side of an argument on a divisive question. The Jewish Voice obviously reports on Jewish concerns in addition to general news. Is this article read by Jews? If "yes", then why wouldn't Trump's comments on Judaism not be of relevance? I am not arguing this is only of interest to Jews. Readers of any background or identity be it religious or otherwise can be informed by such a comment about a father's view of his daughter's religious conversion. There is no need for cynicism here. On the one hand he is a politician but on the other hand he is a family-man with children. In my opinion, a well-rounded biography includes reliably-sourced commentary by the subject of the biography about life-cycle events including the marriage of children and possibly including interfaith marriage and the possible choice of a religion different from the father's. Is this article read by any people interested in interfaith marriage? If "yes" then how can you characterize this material as "cherrypicked, meaningless and undue"? Bus stop (talk) 03:37, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

One has every right to be cynical about what a politician says, especially one such as Trump, well known for his hypocrisy and the contradictions in what he says. We should NEVER draw any conclusions about what any person believes based on what they say alone. This is more true for politicians like Trump than in most cases. It may be relevant to precisely quote what he said, but we must not write as if it is certain that he believes what he said. HiLo48 (talk) 03:48, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Of course not—who said anything about "writ[ing] as if it is certain that he believes what he said"? We are referring to this edit. The edit reads: Referring to his daughter Ivanka's conversion to Judaism before her marriage to Kushner, Trump said: "I have a Jewish daughter; and I am very honored by that." Bus stop (talk) 04:10, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

So if you agree that it proves nothing, what is the point of including it? HiLo48 (talk) 04:17, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

What I said was that he is not only a politician. Is he a cynical father? I don't think we have reason to believe that. Bus stop (talk) 04:20, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

We are not trying to "prove" anything by writing a biography or by including any given piece of material. We are compiling reliably-sourced material on a variety of subjects. He is not only a politician. He has a daughter who chose a religion different from himself. His response to that was that he is "honored" by his daughter's choice of a religion other than his own. As we know religious identity sometimes has relevance. Ultimately we don't know the exact relevance if any in this instance. But I don't think such uncertainty argues against inclusion of material on this subject. Biographies of politicians can contain some material of a non-political nature. Yes, he is the president of the USA, but a reader trying to understand what makes him "tick" is I think interested in his response to his daughter's religious conversion. Bus stop (talk) 04:42, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

They won't learn much from that quote. Trump is smart enough to say the right thing in front of each audience. We are not discussing "His response". We are discussing one response. A highly predictable one. One that says nothing about what he actually believes. HiLo48 (talk) 05:20, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

We are all "smart enough to say the right thing in front of each audience" therefore I don't know what your point is. Ta-Nehisi Coates points out that "words don't have meaning without context". If our words are spoken publicly then there is the understanding that they are intended for a wider audience as well. Trump spoke the words under consideration in this discussion to a "Jewish" audience with the full understanding that other audiences would hear them as well. It is not that the words don't have meaning outside of their original context but that the words are chosen in acknowledgement of the identity of the person or people spoken to. We all speak this way and it is not hypocritical. We tailor our language and what we say to presumed attributes of identity in a target audience. Readers don't mistakenly assume Trump told the group of Giraffe Aficionados of America that he is honored his daughter converted to Judaism. It is understood that there is an applicable context for almost all things that are said. You can call his assertion into question if you have a source showing that he is not quite honored to have his daughter convert to Judaism. But in the absence of any reason for a contrary understanding of the man's sentiments on this point, I think we just accept his words at face value. He is not known to be fiercely religious. An anodyne assumption is that he truly is honored by the daughter's conversion. On the one hand I didn't "agree that it proves nothing" but on the other hand I don't think the statement is enormously meaningful either. I think we include it because it constitutes standard biographical material. How did the non-Jewish father react to his daughter's conversion to Judaism? Answer: he said he was "honored". The daughter's conversion raises a logical question and the material under discussion addresses that question. And we know that in many quarters religion raises serious questions and sometimes raises people's hackles. It is hardly irrelevant to provide insight into how the subject of this biography approaches the potentially divisive topic of religion. This brief quote does not tell us all that may be applicable to Trump's understanding of religion or "identity" in general but it seems to illustrate tolerance of his daughter's conversion to Judaism. Bus stop (talk) 11:42, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Bus stop, unless you are prepared to address the policy-based issue of NPOV and DUE WEIGHT for this very weakly-sourced incidental remark, please don't post in this section. I have previously seen you argue, against policy and ultimate consensus, to insinuate purported Jewish connections into various BLPs. We don't do that without testing such article text for NPOV (among other policies). Please read the entire page at WP:NPOV and post only relevant comments here in this section and any other (non-repetitive) comments somewhere else. SPECIFICO talk 15:19, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO—from where do you derive that there is a violation of either WP:NPOV or WP:OR? We are discussing a reliably sourced quote from Trump addressing his feeling on his daughter's conversion to Judaism. Please be specific. How and why would the inclusion of this material be in violation of any policy including WP:UNDUE? The added material is one sentence long. How is it WP:UNDUE? Is it off-topic? In a "Religion" section of an article on a biography of a living person we don't mention a reaction to a child's conversion to another religion? Please tell me how that reasoning works. Or point to policy language. But please be specific. Bus stop (talk) 16:00, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

By the way I did not initiate this discussion. It was well underway when I joined in. (And of course the material under discussion was added to the article by another editor even before the discussion got underway on the Talk page.) So please do not lay sole blame on me for "insinuat[ing] purported Jewish connections into this BLP. Bus stop (talk) 16:10, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

"... where do you derive that there is a violation of either WP:NPOV or WP:OR?" Easy. WP:BALASP says: "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." For the WP:OR violation, scroll down to my post that begins "In case anyone cares".- MrX 🖋 18:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

In case anyone cares, this material contains OR. The source says:

"Donald Trump proudly entered the dinner hall flanked by his wife Melania, his daughter Ivanka and son-in-law Jared Kushner. Also in attendance were Jared’s parents, Charles and Seryl Kushner. At a Jewish Voice interview, Trump was asked how he felt about being the grandfather of Jewish children, Trump stated, “Not only do I have Jewish grandchildren I have a Jewish daughter and I am very honored by that.”"

Yet, in the article we have:

"Referring to his daughter Ivanka's conversion to Judaism before her marriage to Kushner, Trump said: "... I have a Jewish daughter and I am very honored by that.""

JFG has conflated feelings about Jewish grandchildren with commentary about Ivanka's conversion to Judaism. That seems like patent WP:OR to me.- MrX 🖋 18:28, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

My January 2017 edit was only copyediting prior content; see below. No idea who wrote this in the first place, and it does not matter. — JFG ^talk 08:07, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not saying you did it knowingly or on purpose, but it does matter. It needs to be changed to accurately reflect the source. Anyone?- MrX 🖋 10:32, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Kinda like, by the time there are grandchildren the cat is out of the bag. Good catch. It looks like his deflection to Ivanka might have been his way of dodging the question about his grandchildren. This quote was picked up by remarkably few RS, which usually number in the thousands even for what Trump had for lunch last week. SPECIFICO talk 18:47, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Donald Trump proudly entered the dinner hall flanked by his wife Melania, his daughter Ivanka and son-in-law Jared Kushner. Also in attendance were Jared’s parents, Charles and Seryl Kushner. At a Jewish Voice interview, Trump was asked how he felt about being the grandfather of Jewish children, Trump stated, “Not only do I have Jewish grandchildren I have a Jewish daughter and I am very honored by that.” This is a reliable source, is it not? In my opinion we can either quote that or paraphrase it. Bus stop (talk) 21:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Why did you post this? No one is refuting that it's not a reliable source. The content as currently written doesn't follow the source. We don't have to include it simply because it exists.- MrX 🖋 22:01, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

The source can be followed if there is a will to follow it. Donald Trump is not Jewish. But he expresses, according to reliable sources, that he is "honored" to have Jewish progeny. This fits within a section of the article called the "Religion" section. Bus stop (talk) 22:32, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, a source can be followed. This one shouldn't be. It's trite, and it's a very poor expression of a "religious view". - MrX 🖋 00:57, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Look, it’s not just a matter of what he said, or to whom, or what he meant by “honored”. Forget the quibbling over that stuff. This is basically a matter of his actions. There are Christians who would disown a daughter who married a Jew and converted to Judaism. There are others who would try to hush up their daughter’s conversion, treat it as something “we don’t talk about.” Trump is no such person. He obviously loves his daughter as much as he ever did, is still very proud of her, respects and embraces her religious choice, and accepts and loves his son-in-law and grandchildren. That says something important about Trump and how he regards religion. And it deserves a mention in the religion section. --MelanieN (talk) 00:00, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

With regards to RS and WEIGHT, let's not forget BALANCE - we actually need to add more about his views considering all the accusations of bias and anti-Semitism. I found plenty of RS in a simple Google search using Donald Trump is proud of his Jewish daughter which brought up about 6,350,000. I thought the official WH statement was interesting, and could be used instead: "Anyone that knows the President understands that he takes great pride in having a Jewish daughter and Jewish grandchildren. His love and respect for the Jewish people extends way beyond his family, and into the heart of Jewish American communities." I found a quote by Ivanka in Vanity Fair: (Ivanka has told friends that her father wore a yarmulke at her wedding, and that “if my father had an anti-Semitic bone in his body, I would know about it.”) Then after Ivanka gave birth to Theodore, Trump was quoted in The Times of Israel: “I love Israel. I’ve been with Israel so long in terms of — I’ve received some of my greatest honors from Israel. My father before me, incredible. My daughter, Ivanka, is about to have a beautiful Jewish baby,” Trump said. I think that pretty well covers it as far as notability and relevance to his BLP for inclusion. It's obviously an important part of his life, addresses the false allegations about his being anti-Semitic, and it has value on a global scale as it relates to his support of Israel and US foreign affairs. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:20, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN, there's a bit too much OR in your statement to use it for an editing decision. But just to follow that line of reasoning, I think what this shows is equally likely that Trump thinks l) religion is nonsense and he doesn't care about it at all - or 2) that the unwashed Hasidic Jews of Brooklyn who read that paper are dumb enough to think that a facile and unintelligible statement by a politician will win him their support -- or maybe he thinks these guys have got some money because, well... you know. But Melanie what about DUE WEIGHT? This is an insignificant interview, one of thousands Trump gave in 2015-6 and it was not picked up by RS. It has about 300 google hits. Most of Trump's memorable statements have at least a thousand times as many. SPECIFICO talk 00:30, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN, I'm surprised that would make an argument like that. It completely ignores the dearth of sources that have bothered to take note of Trump's reply to a softball question. Your argument seems to be founded on rather convoluted hypothetical of what Trump could have said. That doesn't jibe with WP:V. I'm also surprised that you would ignore that rather glaring WP:OR introduced by JFG. As currently written, the material is a misrepresentation of what the source actual says. - MrX 🖋 00:49, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@MrX: I did not introduce OR at all. The edit you referenced[5] was trimming the section on religion, and the reference to Trump's response was already there before my edit. Prior text was: In reference to daughter Ivanka, who converted to Judaism before her marriage to Jared Kushner, Trump said… I changed it to Referring to his daughter Ivanka's conversion to Judaism before her marriage to Jared Kushner, Trump said… That was straightforward copyediting. Please be mindful of mischaracterizing work by your fellow editors. — JFG ^talk 08:03, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@JFG: I stand by what I wrote. You changed the meaning of the sentence from "a reference to Ivanka" to "a reference to Ivanka's conversion to Judaism". Those are not the same thing. One is a person; the other is a conversion. The source did not say anything about Trump honoring Ivanka's conversion. Facts matter.- MrX 🖋 10:28, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Let me try that again, both of you, and then I'm done. I'm not at all interested in what he may have said ("one insignificant interview", "Trump's reply to a softball question", etc.). I'm not interested in the particular quote you all have been arguing over for thousands of bytes. Forget all that. I'm interested in what he has DONE and continues to do: love and accept his daughter and her religious affiliation. That's a life decision on his part; it's not something he once said. As for the claim that he only said it to appeal to one small demographic (and SPECIFICO, shame on you for characterizing that demographic as "unwashed Hasidic Jews of Brooklyn"), that's frankly ridiculous. The truth is that he takes a political risk by embracing her Jewishness; there are many "Christians" among his base (here’s one example) who believe that Jews do not go to heaven and would not at all understand how he can accept his daughter being one of those people. He doesn't care what they think; he loves and is proud of his daughter. --MelanieN (talk) 01:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Melanie see the unwashed reference: [6]. The Orthodox of Brooklyn are not Trump Tower wannabe's. As a matter of fact, they are more devoted to study and prayer. Two activities for which we can safely say Trump has never shown the slightest interest or respect. Anyway, you continue to present your OR about religion, Christians and Jews. And how big of him it is to take the moneyed real estate heir Kuschner into the family. But that's all your OR and it almost sounds like you think it should be in the article even with no source, instead of just a miserably defective source. BTW, didja know that the Evangelicals are counting on the Jews to precipitate the Rapture. Yes, that Rapture. The bottom line is, we treat every statement by a politician to a group with skepticism, especially in a room full of prospective campaign donors. We treat Trump's statements with heightened skepticism because we know he's a fibber🤦‍♀️. And we ignore random statements that have not been picked up by mainstream RS to establish DUE WEIGHT. SPECIFICO talk 02:21, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO—I think you misunderstand WP:UNDUE WEIGHT. That policy has nothing to do with whether a source is "mainstream" or not. We are discussing a quote from Trump. He says "Not only do I have Jewish grandchildren I have a Jewish daughter and I am very honored by that."[7] At WP:UNDUE WEIGHT we read "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Is there another quote from Trump expressing a different "viewpoint"? Has Trump said something elsewhere that calls into question the above expressed sentiment? No, I don't think so. Then WP:UNDUE WEIGHT has nothing to do with what we are discussing. Bus stop (talk) 22:28, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN: I had to blink several times in disbelief to absorb what I read when I saw this: "the unwashed Hasidic Jews of Brooklyn who read that paper are dumb enough to think that a facile and unintelligible statement by a politician will win him their support" I'm calling this out as anti-Semitism and completely inappropriate. Redactable, isn't it? Per a recent redaction on this very page an hour ago we can't refer to Kim Jong-Un as a "murderous dictator" but it's acceptable for an editor to refer to Jewish Hasidim as "unwashed" and "dumb"??? I appreciate you calling out SPECIFICO on these anti-Semitic statements she wrote here but am flabbergasted the comments are being allowed to stand. And without more of an admonishment that will actually mean something to SPECIFICO (and every Jewish person she just egregiously insulted). Do we need to start pinging admins and editors who we know are Jewish to get their opinions or am I calling out an elephant in the room that really isn't there? Help me, Rhonda -- I'm just still so shocked I don't know which end is up in Wikipedia any more. What the hell has happened to this place? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Blink all you want, but anyone who reads my words as written will see that you've misrepresented them to sound as if I were denigrating the folks with whom I speculated Trump might have little long-term affinity. Don't misrepresent other editors words -- especially in ways that just coincidentally make the misrepresented editor look bad. SPECIFICO talk 03:00, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

It's offensive and disgusting. I don't care how much you try to explain it away. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:05, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

You obviously still haven't read what I wrote. SPECIFICO talk 03:09, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Winkelvi, I thought it was possible that SPECIFICO was trying to convey the scorn she assumes Trump feels toward these folks - that she was in effect putting that kind of language in his mouth. Maybe not, since she replied here defending the comment as referring to the “great unwashed”, i.e., the lower classes, the working class. Yes, it was offensive in context but I don’t think it should be redacted; I think it should stand along with the commentary on it. And this should be about enough commentary, let’s not get all off track about it.

SPECIFICO, yes, I know I have been making my argument without supporting it with sources. I wasn’t proposing language for the article, just saying why I think it should be included - and yes, the quote you are so scornful of would be perfectly good as a source, you have yet to suggest a policy-based reason for rejecting it, just that you don't think he meant it. To repeat my point one more time: what he said is not important, it’s how he is living that matters. You may find this hard to accept, but I think in this case Trump is not putting on a show; I think he is behaving according to how he actually feels. I am sure you will dispute this since you don’t give him credit for ever doing a genuine thing in his life. --MelanieN (talk) 03:13, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I have been crystal clear as to why it fails PAG, as has MrX. And we have both done so more than once. Wanna talk David Duke now and Charlottesville and Gary Cohn"s rebuke? Also relevant to religion. SPECIFICO talk 03:21, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO—tolerance of religion is a subject appropriately treated in a "Religion" section of a biography, just as religious intolerance would be appropriately treated in a "Religion" section of a biography. You are objecting to the Jewish Voice not being a "mainstream" source. But it is a reliable source. That means that Trump said what he is quoted as saying in response to the question that the source says he was asked. It is reliably sourced that in response to being asked "how he felt about being the grandfather of Jewish children" he responded "Not only do I have Jewish grandchildren I have a Jewish daughter and I am very honored by that."[8] I would suggest adding one sentence to the "Religion" section of our article reading "In response to being asked how he felt about being the grandfather of Jewish children Trump responded "Not only do I have Jewish grandchildren I have a Jewish daughter and I am very honored by that." We are not writing a hatchet job on Trump. You have revealed your non-neutral views with such statements as "Trump thinks religion is nonsense and he doesn't care about it at all—or that the unwashed Hasidic Jews of Brooklyn who read that paper are dumb enough to think that a facile and unintelligible statement by a politician will win him their support -- or maybe he thinks these guys have got some money"[9]. Believe it or not one does not write biographies with a chip on one's shoulder. There is no good reason in this instance to omit material supportive of a laudatory trait in the subject of our biography. Bus stop (talk) 17:56, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

How about a new approach?

I am very, very tired of this discussion focusing entirely on one quote from one source, describing it as a “meaningless curtsy to the Jewish readers of a fringy Brooklyn Jewish weekly”, along with the implication that he only said it that one time to pander to a small group of people. I did a quick search for other times and occasions when he has boasted about his Jewish daughter and family:

• In front of a Jewish crowd: February 2015 at the “Jewish 100” gala in NYC.[10][11] BTW the quote on that occasion was “I have a Jewish daughter. This wasn’t in the plan, but I’m very glad it happened.”

• In front of a Conservative crowd: March 2016 [12]

• On a CNN debate: March 2016 [13]

This is not something he is just saying to pander to Jewish crowds; he says it to general audiences. His apparently happy acceptance and even pride at having Jewish children demonstrate religious tolerance. Religious tolerance is a part of his view of religion. That's why it belongs in the Religion section. How about we get away from that one quote, and reword it to something like this:

Trump’s daughter Ivanka converted to Judaism before her marriage to Kushner; Trump has expressed pride in his "Jewish daughter" and "beautiful Jewish grandchildren".

Thoughts? --MelanieN (talk) 20:56, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support True, accurate, and in line with the RSs. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 21:05, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN, Like the first cite, those are also Jewish or Israeli publications. There are dozens of stories in Haaretz, Jerusalem Post and other mainstream Israeli publications as well as American mainstream and Jewish publications that discuss Trump's tinge of anti-Semitism. These are much more widely covered and better cited than the ones you linked. Are those same events and statments covered your links also widely reported in the mainstream mass media? Those would be much more convincing citations. SPECIFICO talk 21:54, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

What we really should do is drop this entire discussion for a week and come back refreshed. But before we go on break, what do we mean by the "Religion" section? Do we mean Trump's faith, do we mean his attitudes and thoughts about religion, or do we mean his policies and interactions with various religious communities? Let's agree on the scope and then take a break to gather content and citations we can show and tell. SPECIFICO talk 23:05, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

drop this entire discussion for a week Why? I've just proposed a new wording and new sources; let's see what people have to say about it. --MelanieN (talk) 23:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

It has the same problems, and frankly no new insights are going to come from the same old gang of us here. SPECIFICO talk 00:14, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, let's find out. @Signedzzz, JFG, HiLo48, Markbassett, MrX, Space4Time3Continuum2x, Atsme, Scjessey, Objective3000, Emir of Wikipedia, Bus stop, Galobtter, Rreagan007, NoMoreHeroes, and Power~enwiki: Any thoughts about this alternate wording with better sources? I have set it up properly so we can see the sources. --MelanieN (talk) 03:13, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

If necessary we'll go to the noticeboards and RfC. This is self-serving UNDUE trivia at best. At worst it would be WP taking cynical and insulting pandering at face value and rebroadcasting it. And finally, the much more noteworhty subjects of his acoomodations and dogwhistling to anti-semitic hate groups, his anti-Muslim campaigning, his ignorant posturing about his Christian "faith" and a lot of other widely discussed, reliably sourced material would go into the article long before we inform our readers that Trump is happy with his grandchild. Melanie, nobody really signed on to your arguments in this whole matter and you are not taking the serious problems into account with this renewed push. SPECIFICO talk 03:22, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

"his ignorant posturing about his Christian "faith"..." Wow, here's an obviously needed reminder: WP:BLP and "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Donald Trump article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:34, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, we know what you think. You have repeated your opinion many, many times in this series of threads - three times, with increasing intensity, just on this new subthread. I would like to hear what the rest of the people here think. If "nobody signs on with my arguments", that will quickly become clear. Please let it happen. --MelanieN (talk) 03:39, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I haven't been involved in this discussion, so forgive me if I don't understand the nuance of all of this, but it seems like we're proposing using a quote by the subject in order to prove a point. How is that not WP:SYNTH? Should we not find a neutral source that discusses Trump's religious views? Bradv 03:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• Yes MelanieN, this should be in the article. Not positive in precisely the manner you have written but close.--MONGO 04:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. One of the four sources you listed above (47, International Business Times.) cites the same Algemeiner 100 gala in 2015 as our original source, the Jewish Voice article; the other three link to the same Israel times article which also quotes Trump at that same Algemeiner 100 gala. Reminder: Trump and his father stuck to the "we're Swedish" myth until the Nineties precisely because of their Jewish tenants and business associates; nothing to do with tolerance, just business. He says whatever he thinks will meet with the approval of the crowd he happens to be addressing. His apparently happy acceptance and even pride at having Jewish children emonstrate religious tolerance. Sounds like POV to me, the operative word being "apparently," and Ivanka and her conversion (because Kushner wouldn't marry a Gentile but that's even more off-topic) are not the subject here. I don't feel strongly about the current sentence or your proposed rewording (substantially the same as the current one), but it's been challenged. So shouldn't it be removed until this is settled? And since this discussion does not seem to be headed for a consensus, maybe we should all agree on acceptable wording for an RfC. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 04:49, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

He says whatever he thinks will meet with the approval of the crowd he happens to be addressing I have to disagree with that. Of the three instances I listed above, in one case he was addressing a Jewish audience; in the second he was addressing CPAC, a conservative organization not known for having a large number of Jewish members; and in the third he was participating in a nationally televised debate. --MelanieN (talk) 15:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

CPAC - Please see CPAC: WHERE ISRAEL IS AN APPLAUSE LINE – AND MUCH MORE this Jerusalem Post article discusses attitudes toward Israel at the right-wing organization and the problematic conflation of Jewish religion with Zionism and with the Netanyahu strain of Israeli politics. He was not talking to the ASPCA or something obviously neutral. SPECIFICO talk 15:40, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• That is fine with me, MelanieN. Thank you for summoning me. It is well-said, the way you worded it. The sentiment is the thing that matters. Trump, who is not Jewish, holds no animosity to Jews being within his inner circle of family—namely his daughter, son-in-law, and grandchildren. This is a trait worth noting in the biography of Trump. Jews and Christians have not always gotten along. Sometimes when children marry outside of an identity—a Christian identity or a Jewish identity—negative feelings emerge and a rift develops. The opposite appears to be the case with Trump and I think this is a noteworthy facet of the subject of the biography. I like your wording. Before the semicolon your wording tends to be informational; after the semicolon your wording tends to be sentimental. I endorse: Trump’s daughter Ivanka converted to Judaism before her marriage to Kushner; Trump has expressed pride in his "Jewish daughter" and "beautiful Jewish grandchildren". Bus stop (talk) 04:54, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• I would also like to note that it's not just Ivanka who converted and married a Jewish guy. Don Jr. also married a Jewish woman, which means that according to Jewish law, 8 of Trump's 9 grandchildren are also Jewish. And I think his daughter Tiffany is also dating a Jewish guy. Also, Trump's closest mentor back in the 80s was Jewish and a number of his top executives in his companies and advisors have also been Jewish. The idea that Trump has some kind of problem with Jews is honestly rather ridiculous. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:17, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't care whether Trump is anti-semitic or not; I'm saying it's off-topic for the Religion section. If we're going to use the sentence as "balance" for his biases (whether alleged or real) - and that's what I'm hearing from the pro-voices here - let's put it in Racial views. As for Trump's mentor Roy Cohn, he was both Jewish and anti-semitic and gay and homophobic (Forward), and also "vicious" and "brutal" (Trump's words, Politico), - go figure. And when Cohn was dying of Aids, Trump severed all ties to him. Quoting the Forward's Lana Adler: Trump’s outright bigotry during this election, specifically against Latinos and Muslims, as well as his appeal to the blatant racism and anti-Semitism of a large, vocal segment of his followers, is easy to track back to Cohn and his Red Scare era tactics. ::BTW, why do you think that Vanessa Trump is Jewish? I haven't found any indication that she was brought up in the Jewish faith and according to Jewish law she is not because her mother isn't. If Ivanka hadn't converted, her children would also not be Jewish. It doesn't matter whether the father is Jewish or not. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:47, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support MelanieN's proposal + possibly sourced discussion of additional information provided by Rreagan007. — JFG ^talk 07:51, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support - it’s what I proposed yesterday, and provided example sources. There is absolutely no valid reason based on our PAGs to not include such an important aspect of the man’s life. ^{Atsme📞📧} 07:57, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

The aspect of the man's life we are seeing is what he said to a particular audience. It proves nothing about what he actually believes. HiLo48 (talk) 08:11, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Under this theory, we could remove all of the "Racial views" section, because what other people have commented on Trump's words and deeds "prove nothing about what he actually believes". Do you want to go down this path? Unless humanity develops mind-reading capabilities, nobody can ever prove what someone actually believes. We must stick to what they say and how they act. — JFG ^talk 08:29, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. But we must also makes sure that's what we say is the case. We cannot know how racist Trump is, but we can certainly report notable statements that sound racist, or that appear to be pandering to racists for their votes. We should do the same for any politician. HiLo48 (talk) 08:34, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Have we labeled him philosemitic, HiLo48? In my perception you are engaged in handwringing, but I am not sure over what. MelanieN has suggested actual words, which I have endorsed. The wording suggested (Trump’s daughter Ivanka converted to Judaism before her marriage to Kushner; Trump has expressed pride in his "Jewish daughter" and "beautiful Jewish grandchildren") is noninterpretative. We are attributing no qualities to Trump beyond those expressed by Trump. Trump says "Not only do I have Jewish grandchildren I have a Jewish daughter and I am very honored by that." Has he not expressed pride in his "Jewish daughter" and "beautiful Jewish grandchildren"? Bus stop (talk) 11:57, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

"Expressed pride" is reinterpreting and placing a positive value on what he said. Wh must do no more than state what he said. AND STOP TALKING ABOUT ME!!!!!!! I am not the topic. HiLo48 (talk) 21:43, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Being proud of your daughter and loving your grandchildren proves nothing, one way or another; they're family, warts and all. Having Jewish employees, business associates proves nothing, one way or another; it's business, the art of the deal, the same as dealing with the Mafia.

JFG, you need to take another look at the Racial views section. The first (he was accused of), third (were seen as implying ..., remarks were condemned as racist), and last paragraphs (racially insensitive statements have been condemned by... but accepted by his supporters ..., several studies and surveys have stated ...) do mention reactions as such, but mostly that section recounts the well-documented things he has said and in many instances repeated over and over again. So fine, let's put his remarks about Ivanka and the grandkids and his "I'm the least racist" in there for - uh - balance(?). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:50, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Space4Time3Continuum2x—you say "Being proud of your daughter and loving you grandchildren proves nothing, one way or another; they're family, warts and all. Having Jewish employess, business associates proves nothing, one way or another; it's business, the art of the deal, the same as dealing with the Mafia." I didn't say anything about proving anything. I don't think we ever seek ironclad proof of anything. I think we generally seek verifiability. I didn't say anything about Trump having Jewish employees or business associates. Who are you responding to? Bus stop (talk) 16:29, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I was addressing JFG and also Rreagan because JFG's vote referred to that editor. Rreagan wrote that Cohn, top executives at the Trump Organization, and other Trump advisors were Jewish and that therefore Trump having some kind of problem with Jews is rather ridiculous. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• Include: it's crucial to have Trump's own views in his own words about religion in the article, preferable in the Religion section but Racial section would do.– Lionel^(talk) 10:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

What we should include is Trump's own words about his views. There is a difference. HiLo48 (talk) 10:18, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• Strong oppose - MelanieN, I have a great deal of respect for you as an editor and an admin, and very much appreciate your effort to resolve this dispute. The sources you found are a slight improvement over the single, obscure, misinterpreted source of the current material. That said, we should not be jumping though hoops to try to create a beautiful narrative based on Trump boasting about his Jewish daughter. I am very disappointed that some editors would go out of their way to support this, while objecting to including a major Trump policy issue being discussed at the bottom of this page in spite of continual international, in-depth coverage in mainstream sources. Collectively, I think we have thrown our content policies and guidelines to the curb, in favor of gilding the subject's life with with the thinnest of sources and creating a work that overlaps fiction. At the very least, I insist on a formal close on this and the previous related discussion, with the hope that an uninvolved editor will weed out the WP:ILIKEIT votes, and actually review the underlying sources and policy-based arguments. - MrX 🖋 11:34, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

"we should not be jumping though hoops to try to create a beautiful narrative based on Trump boasting about his Jewish daughter" Nor are we supposed to be doing a hatchet job. "I am very disappointed that some editors would go out of their way to support this, while objecting to including a major Trump policy issue being discussion at the bottom of this page in spite of continual international, in-depth coverage in mainstream sources." I haven't even weighed into that discussion. One question at that discussion seems to concern whether to put such material in this article or the Presidency of Donald Trump article. Finally, you are referring to a quote from Trump as "the thinnest of sources". No, it is not thin at all. That source is entirely substantial for the material it is intended to support. The source quotes Trump as saying "Not only do I have Jewish grandchildren I have a Jewish daughter and I am very honored by that." Our wording being considered for inclusion is Trump’s daughter Ivanka converted to Judaism before her marriage to Kushner; Trump has expressed pride in his "Jewish daughter" and "beautiful Jewish grandchildren". Bus stop (talk) 15:15, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - As I said before, I hold no strong view on this matter. In my opinion (and I have no sources to back this up), Trump expressed these words as part of a pander to Jewish-friendly voters. Like every politician running for higher offices, it is necessary for them to establish their "Jewdentials" (my own neologism). My main reason for opposition is that it adds nothing of value to the article whatsoever, and since we are always seeking to trim the fat I regard this as a perfect candidate for exclusion. We all know that Trump is not a religious person, and he only cares about religion when it suits him. There's scant coverage of this, and I find MrX's arguments very persuasive. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:04, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

  "Like every politician running for higher offices, it is necessary for them to establish their "Jewdentials" (my own neologism)." I just do not know what to say to that. Despicable.MONGO 12:46, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• Scjessey, I agree with your assessment of Trump as not being religious and only caring about religion when it serves his purposes, but I think you need to strike that neologism,

Scjessey It seems that you didn't invent that term. An writer for a website in Freiburg, Germany, who goes by the name Nightlife-Guru used it in 2013 when he described an event featuring Henryk Broder:

Immer wieder breiten Redner ihre [neologism] in Form teils gar „unendlich vieler“ jüdischer Freunde und Verwandte sowie diverser Israelbesuche aus … Over and over again, speakers present their [neologism] in the form of "countless" Jewish friends and relatives as well as various visits to Israel …

Original or not, it just feels off. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:32, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• and you too, Mongo. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:59, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• If I could be sarcastic for a moment, "Jewdentials" is the sort of highly creative terminology we need more of around here. Bus stop (talk) 17:05, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Explanation for "Jewdentials" - Just so everyone is clear, I am not going to be striking the neologism. It is absolutely not anti-Semitism, as some people seem to have evidently misconstrued. Politicians fall over themselves to be pro-Israel when running for higher offices. Years ago (I don't have a reference because of a deleted website, but it was during AIPAC 2008 when Obama was doing it; however, I used it in a 2012 tweet), I invented a neologism (that was a play on the word "credentials") designed to be a shorthand term for this peculiar behavior by US politicians. "Israeldentials" doesn't work, so I came up with "Jewdentials". It does not attack Israel or people of the Jewish faith, because it describes the behavior of NON Jews/Israelis seeking office. In fact, that was made quite clear in my comment above, so I really don't know what the fuss is about. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:16, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. I accept your explanation that you didn’t invent the neologism to attack Jews (I think most people reading it got the "credentials" origin) and that you did not intend for it to sound anti-Semitic. It’s a pejorative term, however, and it’s uncomfortably close to the far-right’s use of Jew as an adjective and as a verb. See elephant test.

• Oppose per MrX, SPECIFICO and Scjessey. The sources may imply that the quote demonstrates Trump's pro-Israel stance, but no suggestion that it shows anything about his views on religion, which is what you want to use it for, so that is OR. Meanwhile, there is apparently no space in the article to mention the Trump administration family separation policy for which there is no shortage of sources [14] [15]... zzz (talk) 12:13, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - I have no idea what DJT thinks about religion and I don’t think the sources tell us. It also doesn’t tell us anything about his overall religious tolerance. Evangelicals, part of his base, have become more tolerant of Judaism because they believe Israel is related to the second coming. But, that doesn’t mean that they are tolerant of other religions. Placing this text in the religion section suggests a level of tolerance that may or may not exist and hasn’t been documented in RS. O3000 (talk) 13:10, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose The argument here (that these statements demonstrate that religious tolerance is a part of his view of religion) is unequivocal WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. If you want to imply that, find a (non-opinion) source that says it. Without such a source, this has no place in the religion section because it provides no meaningful information about his personal religious views. There are numerous sources that have gone into depth about Trump's views on religion; the idea that we would need to rely on WP:SYNTH by reading tea-leaves regarding his relationship with his daughter is silly. --Aquillion (talk) 15:50, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to distinguish between any arguments made on this Talk page and actual text of material found in the article. The text presently in the article reads: Referring to his daughter Ivanka's conversion to Judaism before her marriage to Kushner, Trump said: "... I have a Jewish daughter and I am very honored by that." Where is the WP:SYNTH? It is an assertion adequately supported by a source. Any editor can present any argument they choose on a Talk page. What we are concerned with generally-speaking is the propriety or impropriety of the text in the article. Bus stop (talk) 16:33, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

This has already been answered. Here it is again:

The source says:

"Donald Trump proudly entered the dinner hall flanked by his wife Melania, his daughter Ivanka and son-in-law Jared Kushner. Also in attendance were Jared’s parents, Charles and Seryl Kushner. At a Jewish Voice interview, Trump was asked how he felt about being the grandfather of Jewish children, Trump stated, “Not only do I have Jewish grandchildren I have a Jewish daughter and I am very honored by that.”"

Yet, in the article we have:

"Referring to his daughter Ivanka's conversion to Judaism before her marriage to Kushner, Trump said: "... I have a Jewish daughter and I am very honored by that.""

- MrX 🖋 16:41, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what point you are making, MrX. Is there alternative language that you feel would be preferable for placement in our article? Bus stop (talk) 16:50, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

You asked "Where is the WP:SYNTH?" I showed you exactly where it is. It is not adequately supported by the source. No, I oppose this material for reasons I've already stated.- MrX 🖋 17:09, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

You showed me exactly where the SYNTH is? You must not be trying very hard. Why not use your command of the English language to explain what you see as being SYNTH? Bus stop (talk) 17:17, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I had hoped quoting the source and the article, and highlighting the problem would have sufficed, but let me try another approach. The authors of the text currently in the article took ""how he felt about being the grandfather of Jewish children"" from the source, combined it with the common knowledge that Ivanka converted to Judiasm, and came up with this synthesized text: ""Referring to his daughter Ivanka's conversion to Judaism"". The source doesn't say Trump was referring to his daughter's conversion to Judaism and neither can we.- MrX 🖋 17:30, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict - MrX says exactly what I was going to say.) MrX makes a good point. This comment of Trump's was not in response to a question "how do you feel about your daughter converting to Judaism?" It was in response to "how do you feel about having Jewish grandchildren?". To that extent, the introductory clause of the sentence currently in the article is SYNTH. I have proposed alternate wording, above, that gets around that problem. --MelanieN (talk) 17:35, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN—Please examine the source and the material it is intended to support:

His daughter Ivanka is married to Jared Kushner and converted to Judaism before her marriage. Trump told this year’s AIPAC convention and later, CNN, “Not only do I have Jewish grandchildren, I have a Jewish daughter; and I am very honored by that.” [16]

Referring to his daughter Ivanka's conversion to Judaism before her marriage to Kushner, Trump said: "... I have a Jewish daughter and I am very honored by that."

At the top is the source. At the bottom is the wording presently in the article. There is no WP:SYNTH. The source at the top is completely supportive of the material at the bottom. Bus stop (talk) 19:53, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

The reason why it wasn't "caught" before now is because it doesn't exist. We are not extracting an idea that is not explicitly stated in the source. Trump is quoted as saying "... I have a Jewish daughter and I am very honored by that." That is indeed a direct reference to "his daughter Ivanka's conversion to Judaism before her marriage to Kushner". No new idea has been created and nothing "original" has been asserted. He indeed is referring to his daughter's "conversion to Judaism before her marriage to Kushner" when he says "... I have a Jewish daughter and I am very honored by that." That is not SYNTH and that is not "original research". The "two" facts are one and the same. They are not two facts at all. They are one and the same. On the one hand you have the fact that the daughter is Jewish. On the other hand you have the fact that the daughter converted to Judaism. Those are not two different facts. He is referring to his daughter's conversion to Judaism when he says "I am very honored by that". Bus stop (talk) 12:17, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

The Faith of Donald J. Trump - more content for Religion

This recent book provides extensive thoughtful and deep insights into Trump's religious core and beliefs.

It is a WP:NOTABLE book with extensive secondary content and has been reviewed in major publications. [17] [18] [19].

Also, Christian Leaders Call Out the Heresy of Trumpism.

SPECIFICO talk 14:37, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Trump and Islam - more for Religion section

Some mainstream references to consider:
Anti-Muslim Extremists Retweeted by Trump Are Convicted of Hate Crimes

Hate Crimes Spiked After Trump’s Anti-Muslim Tweets, Study Finds

Trump’s surprising Ramadan message to Muslims

In Trump’s America, ‘acting Muslim’ is more dangerous than ever.

SPECIFICO talk 14:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

References related to concerns and controversies RE:anti-Semitism

Donald Trump’s anti-Semitism controversies: A timeline - The Times of Israel
SPECIFICO talk 14:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• "Trump’s foreign policy slogan, “America First,” echoes the World War II-era non-interventionist movement championed by a notorious anti-Semite."
• "Trump delayed disavowing the support of white supremacist David Duke. And the candidate has failed to condemn the recent anti-Semitic vitriol directed by supporters against journalists who have written critically of Trump, including New York Times reporter Jonathan Weisman and GQ writer Julia Ioffe."
• "Trump seems to go out of his way to highlight the “Daily Show” host’s Jewish background, tweeting: 'I promise you that I’m much smarter than Jonathan Leibowitz — I mean Jon Stewart @TheDailyShow. Who, by the way, is totally overrated.'"
• "Trump appears to traffic in stereotypes about Jews. 'You’re not going to support me because I don’t want your money,' he told the Jewish audience."

And a lot more. I hope everyone has read the article by now, it having been linked here several weeks ago.
SPECIFICO talk 13:36, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Should the immigration section include material about Trump's family separation policy?

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 the immigration section include material about Trump's family separation policy? The following is proposed:

In April 2018, Trump enacted a "zero tolerance" policy overturning previous administrations' practice of making exceptions for families unlawfully crossing into the U.S. with children. By the sixth week, nearly 2000 children had been separated from their parents, culminating in demands from Democrats, Republicans, Trump allies, and religious groups that the policy be rescinded. Trump falsely asserted that his administration was merely following the law.

References

Please indicate whether you support or oppose something similar to the above text, along with your reasoning. - MrX 🖋 16:44, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

---

• Support Concise, well sourced, extensive coverage, clearly an important aspect of material already in the article. WP:RS and WP:DUE are covered. O3000 (talk) 16:52, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support "... and falsely blamed Democrats for his own administration's policy", as widely reported in RS. zzz (talk) 17:02, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Not seeing this as biography suitable but maybe acceptable in a more neutral form on the Presidency article. The section also reads as if all oppose Trump...when many conservatives are in agreement with this policy. [20] and the section needs to be clear that this new policy is merely a stricter enforcement of existing laws which were ignored by prior administrations. [21] regardless, this does not belong in this BLP anyway.MONGO 17:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Not appropriate for this article. For the DJT presidential article, and neutrally written, yes. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 17:12, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support - It's brief, relevant, factual, neutrally written, and backed by numerous sources that have covered this material extensively. The policy was enacted by Trump, which is exactly why it belongs in this article with the rest of his presidential actions and policies that we so gleefully include. Trump, and handful of his acolytes, have attempted to blame Democrats for the policy, which of course is another in long series of alternative facts (AKA, lies). The policy has caused a backlash from Republican stalwarts like Laura Bush who compared it with American internment of Japanese during WW2 (the big one).- MrX 🖋 17:21, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support for inclusion in the immigration section, but like others commenting here I don't like “Trump falsely asserted that his administration was merely following the law”; that wording is not supported by the sources. It should say "and falsely blamed Democrats for his own administration's policy" or "Trump falsely blamed the separations on the Democrats" or something similar. That’s what he keeps saying and tweeting, and that’s what the sources are reporting. Also, it isn't really clear what "zero tolerance policy" means. I suggest something like "In April 2018, Trump enacted a "zero tolerance" policy of prosecuting everyone who enters the country illegally. This overturned previous administrations' practice of making exceptions for families with children, and resulted in the jailing of parents and their separation from their children. By the sixth week..." --MelanieN (talk) 17:43, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I concur with your suggested changes.- MrX 🖋 18:12, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't concur because it is a political argument and I'm not seeing any substantive facts in any of the sources that substantiate the denials or assertions beyond respective political biases, advocacies and the rule of law, and all of the evidence I've seen to date favors the rule of law. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:08, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually, sources are very clear about this, so let's use the sources. Your interpretation is not found in any of the reliable sources that I've seen.- MrX 🖋 20:03, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

No, they are not clear, they are spinning the truth, playing on human emotion and are not properly presenting the actual facts, which includes purposeful child endangerment by the parents who are being arrested for not entering legally via ports of entry and by adults who are trafficking children, etc. NOTNEWS, SOAPBOX, RECENTISM, ADVOCACY, and noncompliance with NPOV comes to mind when I read the proposed material. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:56, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

" they are spinning the truth" - thank you for your opinion. You're basically admitting that you are not going to follow the Wikipedia policy on reliable sources. Why should anyone pay any attention to your comments or !votes then? And seriously, at some point your continued use of this and other talk pages for your WP:NOTAFORUM opinions becomes disruptive andbreaches the discretionary sanctions in place.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I've chosen instead to follow WP's PAGs on NPOV, NOTNEWS, ADVOCACY, SOAPBOX and to engage in sound editorial judgment regarding inclusion of such spin into this encyclopedia. Your allegation that I've breached DS is what needs study, along with every single response you've made to my comments. Now you have elevated your bludgeoning, false accusations and baiting to threatening me based on your own misinterpretations of policy. Please stop - it is a distraction and disruptive to this discussion. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:35, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@MelanieN:It's been two days since your "support" above. There's now wide coverage of Trump blaming this policy on his Administration being forced to follow some law. Do you now acknowledge that Trump has repeatedly blamed a law, or what he sometimes calls a loophole in the law, both created by the Democrats, for forcing him to divide and detain families? SPECIFICO talk 12:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, I don't understand your question. I have already said that I support saying that he blames the Democrats. Sometimes he blames it on "a law", although I think the law he is referring to was not created by the Democrats and was actually signed by George W. Bush. (Sorry, don't have a link for that.) [22] (And of course he and Nielsen make it a mantra that they are "just following the law," which begs the question of why they only discovered that law a year and a half into his presidency). The rest of the time he blames it on the Democrats "obstruction" or their "refusal to come to the table", which is nonsense because it is the Republicans who deliberately exclude the Democrats from any discussions. It would be way beyond the scope of this article to try to detail all the different reasons he gives for blaming the Democrats; we should simply point out that he does. --MelanieN (talk) 18:25, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

You said "he blamed it on the law" was not supported by sources. But he has been documented and seen on TV many times saying the ("Democrat") law forced him to do this. Now he's reversed himself -- both on the policy and on his misrepresentation of the law. Both are significant, IMO. SPECIFICO talk 23:54, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

@MelanieN: The rest of the time he blames it on the Democrats "obstruction" or their "refusal to come to the table", which is nonsense because it is the Republicans who deliberately exclude the Democrats from any discussions. I can't wait to see who will oppose both legislative and executive fixes for this problem. wumbolo ^^^ 17:37, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support I liked the initial version better, but either is a good start. SPECIFICO talk 00:16, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Generally concur, but it's equivocating about what's "illegal" -- They are denying asylum under their own dubious legal theories. The "rule of law" bit is typical fake news and needs to be very scrupulously sourced to multiple notable experts. SPECIFICO talk 19:40, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes. It's hard to find the truth about what's really going on. I have read that they have purposely slowed the traffic at the legal entry points to snail's pace so people can't get through. And I have read that some that cross into the U.S. and then turn themselves in asking for asylum are treated as no different than if they were apprehended against their will. Perhaps they try an illegal cross because they were refused at a legal crossing. We just don't know. Gandydancer (talk) 00:32, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

In every edit on these Trump articles, we need to double check our own judgment and sources to be sure we are not parroting the White House Press Office, Trump, his surrogates, or his Congressional flacks. We always need to exercise judgment, but the deceptions are artful and complex and our best efforts are required to maintain NPOV. SPECIFICO talk 00:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Obviously we need to make sure that the articles don't have anti-Trump fluff either, any bias here needs to be gone, which is hard, but I think that we can come to a bunch of different compromises here :). Jdcomix (talk) 22:50, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. This is 100% relevant for his Presidency article, but I don't think every news item should appear in this article. If in a short while this becomes really big and lasting then perhaps we can revisit. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:11, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this could become bigger than the extensive international coverage it's already receiving and unprecedented public comments from four former first ladies. This has received lasting coverage for more than two months. - MrX 🖋 12:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose for now as per Sir Joseph. Could be added in the future if it is more notable. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:56, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: the entire "Presidency" section of this article could be re-worked; I continue to hope that the dog-days of summer will eventually give enough of a respite from day-to-day news to discuss that. Right now I'm neutral on whether this material should be included in this article (it definitely should be included at Presidency of Donald Trump). power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:07, 18 June 2018 (UTC) Support once the word-smithing below is done; there will be additions once Congress acts and/or the impact of Trump's EO are known. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:49, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - The article uses U.S., not US, and I've taken the liberty to make that change above. It's a nit, but it's best to get this right from the outset, especially for something that might end up in the consensus list. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:17, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - thought I already iVoted. My reasons are provided above (by approx 5 comments). The proposed text is factually inaccurate and omits important information. See factual reporting by Texas Tribune. They also covered the Obama border immigration crisis. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:29, 18 June 2018 (UTC) ^{Strike and underlined add-on dated 08:47, 19 June 2018 (UTC)}
• Oppose for now as per Sir Joseph. At the moment, it's the shiny object du jour. Deserves a little time to sort out.S Philbrick(Talk) 19:35, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support Extensive worldwide reliably sourced coverage in mainstream media. Wikipedia is not censored. The policy has been in place for months with mounting coverage so calling it a topic of the day is just bizarre. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:46, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support Of course. Why the hell not? It's well sourced, extensive coverage, and obviously relevant to the section ... which is called "immigration", no? And I'm always amused by the logical pretzels some people will come up to justify their WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:48, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
• Query: - For those who are voting "not now", could you please give some indication of what amount of time; what amount of coverage in sources; or what further developments would change your minds? As of now, 2000 children have been separated from their parents, with some sources projecting 30,000 by the end of the summer. Is there some number of children locked in Walmarts that would qualify this for inclusion? Pinging: Sphilbrick — Sir Joseph — Emir of Wikipedia: - MrX 🖋 19:56, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I have several issues, but speaking to the "not now" query, there's a meeting scheduled tomorrow to sort out a potential legislative solution. I don't hold out much hope, but I would think that waiting for that meeting, plus a couple days to see reactions would be prudent. I am curious how someone managed to estimate 30,000 by end of summer. If that's 100 days, that means averaging 280 per day. Per NBC News, they've averaged 46 per day.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:41, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Addendum - there's a news conference by the DHS head in progress as I type.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:34, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, here is a source for the 30,000.[23] - MrX 🖋 23:31, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

The headline of that source includes the words Might Be, and it's Fortune Magazine.... The issue is an emotional one that is being misrepresented by baitclick media, not a factual one, (see Vox), which clearly does not allow children to be arrested along with their parents who have committed a crime by crossing the border illegally rather than going through legal ports of entry. It's the law, and it doesn't matter who likes it or doesn't like it - it's the law - and until that changes we should not be focused on the propaganda that is focused on human emotion. WP must not be used as SOAPBOX, and the proposed inclusion of material is noncompliant with NPOV - consensus cannot override it. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:02, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

You're all over the map. No one is suggestion that we include the 30,000 projection. If you don't think sources are reliable because they are propagandizing or use click bait headlines, you can try your luck at WP:RSN. "Noncompliant with NPOV" is nothing more than ipse dixit.- MrX 🖋 23:04, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support. This is obviously relevant. It's covered in every news source imaginable, and child concentration camps may very well end up as the thing that Trump is most remembered for. Bradv 20:22, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support. The issue has long-term encyclopedic value and will be one of the things this man and his presidency will be renowned for. The issue has been extensively covered by RS and has worldwide attention. 2,000 children have been separated and this policy has only been in place for six weeks. The issue has received massive coverage in the last few days due to the fantastic work of journalists and advocacy organizations who have been exposing the reality on the ground and piecing together what's happening. Experts have condemned the policy, warning that the thousands of children who have been separated from their parents are at risk of physical and mental harm, and have described the practice as "government-sanctioned child abuse". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:34, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - Only time will tell whether this, like so many other issues in his presidency, warrants mention in a one-page biography. Until we have that historical perspective, most should be confined to the Presidency article. I take a very dim view of editor predictions of what he will be remembered for as president, which are little more than speculation.
  If he takes the U.S. to war, is impeached, or imposes martial law, no historical perspective is needed. In my view the appropriate bar for this article lies somewhere between issues like this and issues like those. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:07, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

• Mandruss, as you know I am somewhat sympathetic with your cautious approach to adding recent events. However this is not obviously fleeting. The article will change and less noteworthy content will be replaced with more noteworthy in light of future events and perspective. But we need to exercise our best judgment in the meantime if we are to have an article. We can discard trivia like his Jewish Grandchild or his Apprentice shoot location, or even being cast in The Simpsons. But this is very likely enduring material, even if we improve it over time we can start with our best effort today. SPECIFICO talk 01:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
• No, it's very clear that on the topic of immigration (a key aspect in his candidacy and presidency) that this along with the ending of DACA and the Muslim ban are the three most notable actions of his presidency. If Trump goes on to reign as a dictator for twenty years, starts a nuclear war and captains the US to victory in the World Cup, we can update our priorities of encyclopedia-worthy content as more and more amazing things start to stack up in this man's life. As it stands, enacting a policy that causes irreparable harm to thousands of children obviously belongs in the article and obviously has long-term encyclopedic value. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:29, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

• Assuming for the sake of argument that you are undeniably correct that the policy causes irreparable harm to thousands of children, you apparently feel it's appropriate to use the encyclopedia to do good in the world, which is synonymous with a political platform. I don't. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:59, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

• (1) It's the American Academy of Pediatrics's view that the policy causes "irreparable harm" to children. (2) There is nothing in my statement that relates to doing good in the world. It's strictly about what's notable, of long-term value and encyclopedic. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:18, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, please see WP:SOAPBOX and WP:POINT. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 22:02, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support absolutely. It is an international scandal and a human right violation of the worst kind. It is international news on 7 continents, and for the kids, it will lead to long term psychological damage. scope_creep (talk) 21:17, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support. This is extensively sourced, with front page news coverage in the world's media. I suspect this may be a turning point of Trump's presidency. -- The Anome (talk) 21:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment It NOT an issue, that may be different next week. It is a violation of highest international agreements that relate to the promotion of children and children's welfare. Here how some newspapers report it, from across the world.

• Reynolds, Emma (19 June 2018). "'Offensive to Americans': US furious with Trump over 'cruel' and 'immoral' policy". News Limited Copyright. news.com.au. Retrieved 18 June 2018.

• "US Border Patrol: Hundreds of children kept in cages at facility in Texas". 2018 ABC. ABC News. 18 June 2018. Retrieved 18 June 2018.

• Allen, Nick (18 June 2018). "The story behind heartbreaking photograph of little girl at the US-Mexico border". Telegraph Media Group Limited 2018. The Telegraph. Retrieved 18 June 2018.

• "Immigration : Trump réaffirme sa politique de séparation des enfants de leurs parents" (in French). France. Le Monde. 18 June 2018. Retrieved 18 June 2018.

• "Taken from parents, hundreds of children being kept in Border Patrol facility in Texas". Japan Times. 18 June 2018. Retrieved 18 June 2018.

scope_creep (talk) 21:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support. This has rec'd non-stop and around-the-world coverage. The last four first ladies have all come out against it, surely a first. I agree with Melanie that the language re Trump needs work and I'd like to see the medical community reaction added. Also, I do not think that the wording should include "illegal" because it is well-documented that people presenting for asylum are having their children taken away as well. Gandydancer (talk) 23:33, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

That's a good point. They are violating their own policy (which Kirstjen Nielsen reaffirmed) as well as international norms when they arrest people seeking asylum at legal ports of entry. --MelanieN (talk) 23:44, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose For now, if it keeps getting wide coverage it could be suitable for his presidency article. If it keeps going after that it could be due for here as well. But as of right now it is just the latest headline so it would be good to keep WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS in mind until things settle a little. PackMecEng (talk) 23:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • These two policies dont apply here. It is far too serious an incident, and too widely covered internationally for these policies to apply. Its not some fly by night non issue, or regional issue, like Building the Wall. It is truly international and it will be brought up every time his name is mentioned, even after his death. He will be known as the guy who caged children, and always be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scope creep (talk • contribs) 00:48, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@Scope creep:That is WP:OR and WP:CRYSTAL, both are not helpful. PackMecEng (talk) 00:53, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM. Jdcomix (talk) 22:50, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
What I'm seeing is propaganda spreading like wildfire by fake news: Snopes <--- pure propaganda, 2014 photo<--- fake news. If you want to label a president, start with Obama who was president in 2014 when that last photo originated because any attempts to do so will be as futile an exercise as trying to hang it on Trump. Atsme📞📧 01:29, 19 June 2018 (UTC) What in the world does this have to do with anything? Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC) It has everything in the world to do with it. Atsme📞📧 03:04, 19 June 2018 (UTC) K.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:05, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support. This has many reliable references, wide coverage, and is not a single or isolated topic. Many people from different back grounds and political parties have spoken about this. Its on all major and minor news sites with varying areas covered. ContentEditman (talk) 00:13, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support: as clearly animated by Trump's anti-immigration stance & other positions (birtherism, travel ban, etc). Not an isolated incident. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:15, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Atsme It is nothing to do with fake news, and it is nothing to do with Obama, and it is not propaganda. It may be a partisan political issue in the United States, but the rest of the world don't see it that way. They see kids in cages, in a policy officially sanctioned by Trump, although it was Sessions that implemented it, and most if not all the reports refer to Trump specifically, not the Whitehouse and not the president.

• Allen, Nick (19 June 2018). "Donald Trump defends 'zero-tolerance' immigration policy amid fury over separated children". Telegraph Media Group Limited. The Telegraph. Retrieved 19 June 2018. scope_creep (talk) 07:33, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

The loophole in the US immigration law has been there for decades - Trump called on Congress to close the loopholes in the immigration law back on Jan 30th during his State of the Union speech, (see WaPo article.) What is happening on the border is far more complex than what the proposed addition in this RfC even begins to address - without clarity it becomes spin, and spin doesn’t belong in this article or WP. For the actual facts without the spin read the article in Texas Tribune - they also covered the story when Obama was president. ^{Atsme📞📧} 08:34, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• Too early to decide – Check back in a couple months after the big fuss dies down, and see what remains. In the meantime, add it to the "presidency" and "immigration policy" articles. — JFG ^talk 07:53, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Two months is too early to decide?- MrX 🖋 11:47, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

The policy may have changed two months ago, but the outrage only sparked over the last couple days. Still very much in the news cycle drama phase. We should at least wait until forthcoming bills are debated in Congress. — JFG ^talk 15:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

The rest of us will decide. I don't know what it adds to say "Dunno" but anyway, as Bush said, decisions go to the deciders. SPECIFICO talk 01:37, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Bills in Congress? That is not what happened is it? We need to work within the real world framework that's been reported over the past weeks. This has nothing to do with Congress. SPECIFICO talk 01:37, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose: the ink on this breaking news story is barely dry. This puts the "recent" in WP:RECENTISM. – Lionel^(talk) 09:48, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect. This has been covered since April.[24][25][26][27] That's two months. We routinely and extensively update articles with information more recent than this, and far less important information like lunches with dictators and sports scores.- MrX 🖋 11:47, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

"lunches with dictators"MONGO 11:51, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually, MrX - the separation of children was covered in 2014 when it was happening under the Obama administration - which is when some of the photos of children in "cages" were actually taken but were wrongfully circulated as the fault of the Trump administration - no surprise there. It's the fault of Congress, but it appears they are finally getting off their duffs with intentions to close the loopholes that cause the family separation (so the facts should be presented accurately without the spin, and the fact is that under the Trump administration the loop holes may well be closed to prevent separation of families). In the interim, U.S. laws do not allow children to accompany their parents to jail, and they don't allow children to be exploited by child traffickers and so on. Those are the facts, not the emotion or the spin. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:50, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Your source doesn't support your WP:OR. We use sources, not your "facts".- MrX 🖋 20:57, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, you, your president, and his spokespeople are the only ones who maintain "it's the fault of Congress". Will you please stop dropping your talking points here? It is a discredit to you, and someone somewhere is marking this down to gather evidence for a topic ban. Your blah blah about US laws falls in the same category (illegal border crossing being misdemeanors in the realm of parking tickets, I'm told); kindly do not use Wikipedia to defend the government's application of policy and guidelines. But if you want to: "if it's the fault of Congress" you can't have Sessions take credit for it. It's one or the other. Drmies (talk) 23:39, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

”My” president, Drmies? My credibility? Your veiled threat about my comments being collected by “someone” as evidence for a TB? Noted. ^{Atsme📞📧} 09:20, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Dude, you've made something like ten contributions to this RfC already. WP:BLUDGEON, much? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:35, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

And you violated DS with this revert and were spared AE by a gracious admin but now you're casting WP:Aspersions, so please respect the DS restrictions of Civility that apply to this TP....and I'm not a dude. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:50, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support This is getting extensive, front page, headline coverage in many countries outside the USA, with photos of kids in cages. It's putting the the whole country in the headlines. HiLo48 (talk) 11:42, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support - If anything, the language is very timid when referring to the lies being told by everyone in the administration. Trump said Democrats are to blame, Kelly called it a deterrent, Sessions said "it sends a message", Nielsen said it was not administration policy, Conway said it was administration policy (but that they weren't proud of it), Miller also said it was administration policy (but that they were proud of it, for fuck's sake), and Sarah Sanders waffled on about it being "biblical" or something I don't understand. I'm not a bible scholar, but I don't remember it recounting that time when Jesus ripped babies from the arms of their mothers and made them talk to each other by Skype. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:21, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose for now per MONGO. We should include that some conservatives agree with him, rather that the current wording that look like everybody is against him. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:11, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• I think it would be fine to note that not a single Republican Senator expressed support for legislation that would the practice of family separation (though that may change) even though a lot of Republican congresspeople have expressed opposition to family separations in the abstract. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:14, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps one of our legal experts can define how the law works or you can read this article which explains some of the legal reasons the children are being separated. The children of American citizens who break the law do not go to jail with their parents - they are separated from them - and that is where some editors have lost the point on what's happening, and why they may be supporting the emotional spin. It's SOAPBOX, plain and simple. Sound editorial judgment is required. As I said above, we can't just include parts of what is happening because that makes it noncompliant with NPOV and other policies. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:20, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

"you can read this article " - which you obviously didn't bother reading yourself seeing as how everything else you said in that comment is directly contradicted by the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:09, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oh ffs That sound clip of children crying hysterically for their moms and dads, while Border Patrol makes jokes is everywhere right now. The only place I haven't heard it yet is during the World Cup matches (maybe half time). Excluding this material is nothing but pure WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Btw, anyone know if that sound clip is copyrighted?Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:08, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM Jdcomix (talk) 22:50, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The argument for including this propaganda (just because it's in the news) has got to be among the weakest arguments and biggest time sinks I've seen yet. WP:SOAPBOX, WP:ADVOCACY, WP:NPOV. Politicized spin focused on emotional reactions and crying children doesn't even come close to "dispassionate tone".... Take it to Wikinews, for Pete's sake, and focus on dispassionate, factual encyclopedic information for inclusion in our pedia. Atsme📞📧 16:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC) Let's see some sources for this being "propaganda". Otherwise please refrain from making unconstructive comments per WP:NOTAFORUM.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:53, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support including this in some form - well-sourced (I don't like the "Exceptions" language, but fixes can be made in course of regular editing), length is appropriate (3 short sentences); this has been going on for weeks and has received extensive attention internationally, by scholars and experts, etc. I've seen no policy-based reason to exclude these. Neutrality^talk 16:35, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
• Comment would there be consensus to add only the first sentence In April 2018, Trump enacted a "zero tolerance" policy overturning previous administrations' practice of making exceptions for families unlawfully crossing into the U.S. with children. to the existing section on immigration? I expect the rest of the content will change in the next month anyhow. @MONGO, Winkelvi, JFG, and Mandruss: as oppose voters who might support this as a compromise. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:40, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • That's only half the news, Power~enwiki. Drmies (talk) 16:41, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
    • "news". I think we can wait until Congress acts, rather than referring to demands from Democrats, Republicans, Trump allies, and religious groups; as a practical measure we have to given that this RFC is likely to last a month (or be withdrawn once something happens). power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:46, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
      • Don't pretend you don't know that I know damn well what NOTNEWS says. That zero-tolerance stuff is noteworthy not just on its own merits, but also because practically the whole world, including his wife, are criticizing him for it. I'm sure you think that's unfair, but it is so widely covered that if you put one part in you have to put the other part in. Drmies (talk) 16:49, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
        • I don't think "everyone is criticizing him" is relevant in the long term; what they actually do (or don't do) to stop him is relevant. I'd rather include mention of things like Republican governors withdrawing the National Guard from the border in response [28]. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:11, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
• If the prez hadn't made the presidency such a personal thing I'd say put it in the presidency article--but given the whole "I alone can fix this" those boundaries are profoundly blurred. I wasn't much involved with the Obama article (I left that to my socks), but I don't remember those kinds of things being that complex during the previous presidency. So given that, and given the contradictory statements and outright lies, I suppose this has a place here. Drmies (talk) 16:43, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Drmies, you made my day. Keeping your 🧦🧦🧦 neatly organized in your 🧦drawer is a good thing. 😂 Guess what? It appears Trump's actions are working - and this is one issue that I have been watching with interest - so when you get a chance, read the following: NBC, and article. The loophole in U.S. law that Trump has long been trying close (as evidenced by his State of the Union speech) - may finally happen. Once it incubates and Congress gets it passed, it will be interesting to see how WP editors will handle the positive information because it will have been under his direction and his wishes that this is finally happening, so the proposed material won't last long. Uhm...RECENTISM?? ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:16, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

One can usually tell whether a story has legs or not. All four living former first ladies and the current have spoken. When’s the last time that happened? A bipartisan group of more than 70 former US attorneys are calling on Sessions to reverse the Trump administration's policy. Even if Cruz can somehow get 375 judges quickly put in place, this story is likely to haunt the DOJ for ages. I don’t think the Founding Fathers had this in mind when they discussed the mechanics of passing legislation. O3000 (talk) 17:39, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

This is top of the page, front page headline news in the objective media in my country, Australia, right now. This same media has taken to describing Trump using the words "very unorthodox", to explain the detail in which they cover some of his actions. I doubt if even his greatest supporters could rationally argue with "unorthodox". It's what they wanted, isn't it? Given that unorthodoxy and, as Drmies said, his overtly personal ownership of the Presidency, it's inevitable that images of crying kids, and kids in cages, in the USA, all at the behest of Donald Trump, become world news. This is big. It's about Trump. It demands to be in the article in considerable detail. HiLo48 (talk)!

• Support - This has been the subject of non-stop coverage in US media for 3 days now, it's obviously worthy of inclusion here. Jdcomix (talk) 22:50, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Because this article is a biography of his entire life, not just major events in his presidency. Belongs in the Presidency article.--v/r - TP 00:15, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
• *Support Clearly important enough to be in his bio as well as an article only about his Presidency. Well sourced and written.Casprings (talk) 00:23, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
• Update: Our main article on this subject is now 4483 words long, has 115 source citations, references Trump 31 times, and was read by 12,462 readers yesterday. I wonder how many of those readers are puzzled by the lack of any mention, or even a wikilink, in the article text of the biography of the person who enacted the policy and who continues to falsely blame Democrats for the humanitarian crisis of his making.[29] - MrX 🖋 13:43, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Stop it. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:49, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Yup. More evidence of how dysfunctional the situation is here where a vocal minority obstructs to prevent obviously relevant info from being added to the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:51, 20 June 2018 (UTC) WP:NOTAFORUM PackMecEng (talk) 14:11, 20 June 2018 (UTC) Discussing the dysfunctional nature of a Wikipedia article is not "forum behavior". Thanks though.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:25, 20 June 2018 (UTC) @Volunteer Marek: Oh please, you know this is the wrong place for that crap so cut the WP:NOTAFORUM out. You are welcome though. PackMecEng (talk) 15:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC) Seeing as how this RfC epitomizes the actual dysfunction, it's the perfect place for it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:31, 20 June 2018 (UTC) And I appreciate your personal opinions on how wikipedia functions, but you don't know what you are talking about if you think this is the place to right wikipedia's wrongs. Like really really kind of in a funny way wrong, so wrong it makes me question your thought process, but that would get into forum territory again. PackMecEng (talk) 15:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC) K.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:39, 20 June 2018 (UTC) @PackMecEng: Perhaps, but it is a fair point nonetheless. MASSIVE coverage in reliable sources that specifically associate Trump with the matter personally, including near constant coverage on cable news, and yet the article is still silent on the issue. The system that broke Washington DC is now doing the same to Wikipedia. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:19, 20 June 2018 (UTC) @Scjessey: Fair enough, I do not disagree there are issues on Wikipedia. But an RFC on an article talk page is not the place to bitch and moan about it. PackMecEng (talk) 14:21, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support inclusion in some form: I'm going to say yes, but, like MelanieN and Gandydancer, with some editing for clarity. As for policy, per Neutrality, I find no reason there to object, and I'm sure we can come to a wording with which we can all agree. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 13:49, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support. It's a defining event for both the man and the presidency. I propose an update based on today's Time article and a slight rewording (for the original references please see above)

In April 2018, Trump enacted a "zero tolerance" immigration policy, taking adults unlawfully crossing into the U.S. into custody for criminal prosecution, and separating children from parents. By mid-June, more than 2,300 children had been placed in shelters, including "tender age" shelters for babies and toddlers,[1] culminating in demands from Democrats, Republicans, Trump allies, and religious groups that the policy be rescinded.[2] Trump falsely asserted that his administration was merely following the law.[3][1][4][5]

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk • contribs) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support The impact of this is undeniable. Obviously we don't know what will happen next, but we know that this is already among the most significant events/policies of the administration. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: Are you sure you want to go with most significant events/policies of this administration? Seems rather overkill for a flash in the pan situation like this. PackMecEng (talk) 18:29, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't agree that this is a "flash in the pan". This is going to continue to be a huge deal as we wait to see how families are reunited, if they are reunited, and it will be a major issue in the midterm elections. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:32, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: That all sounds very WP:CRYSTAL. It's been less than a week since it broke in any significant way. PackMecEng (talk) 18:49, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

If we didn't make judgments like this on the WP:LASTING effects of recent events, we'd be woefully out of date. To suggest that Trump and immigration will factor into the 2018 elections hardly requires a crystal ball. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:34, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I mean that is why we have policies WP:BREAKING, WP:DELAY, and WP:RECENT. That is the problem with breaking news articles and additions, the significance and impact cannot be known within days of an event. Also good to remember the essay WP:NODEADLINE. PackMecEng (talk) 19:50, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I understand the purpose of those policies, but I think that the significance of this is clear. Some details may change due to the BREAKING nature of all of this, but we can address that as events develop. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:03, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough, I disagree but I see where you are coming from and appreciate you taking the time to explain your rationale. PackMecEng (talk) 20:07, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

It's always nice to have civil discourse with people we disagree with. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:16, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely! If we simply follow our guidelines, such as WP:RSBREAKING, and at the same time, lose the sense of urgency that drives clickbait traffic, we'd be miles ahead. WP is fortunate in that its future is not dependent on a sensationalized, breaking news business model like what has become the lifeline for so many media outlets that are forced to compete for market share in the same online markets. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:32, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Nothing in WP:RSBREAKING says we shouldn't include this. It just says we should take care not to rush, take a day or two as events develop. This RfC has been open three days. The family separations are well documented in reliable sources, as has been the public sentiment and Trump administration reactions. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Muboshgu, I'm not saying to not include it; however, it does need to be worded correctly. I question the part that states in WikiVoice, "Trump falsely asserted that his administration was merely following the law." His response was not a false assertion - they were following the law. See this Vox article which explains Flores v. Reno. According to the DOJ's interpretation of the law, children cannot be held with their parents in detention for illegal entry, which is why they sent the children to DHHS as “unaccompanied alien children.” NBC stated that there is still "confusion as to what the Trump administration’s detention policy will look like going forward." The NYTimes reported that Trump's EO could face a legal battle because a federal judge could deny them authority to hold families in custody more than 20 days (1997 court order and Flores v. Lynch (2016) court of appeals) which supports Trump's statement that they were following the law...but now with the EO, maybe not. Congress, in a bipartisan effort, is responsible for making the laws, and fixing that immigration law. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:22, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

It is rather ridiculous to jam that end bit in. Almost like we are purposely trying to misrepresent what happened with no explanation. PackMecEng (talk) 02:07, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

That sentence needs to be corrected as previously pointed out. We can use these sources:

"Trump has falsely blamed the separations on a law he said was written by Democrats. But the separations instead largely stem from a "zero-tolerance" policy announced with fanfare last month by Attorney General Jeff Sessions. "
— Chicago Tribune

"President Trump on Saturday repeated his false assertion that Democrats were responsible for his administration’s policy of separating migrant families apprehended at the border, sticking to a weekslong refusal to publicly accept responsibility for a widely condemned practice that has become a symbol of his crackdown on illegal immigration."
— The New York Times

"President Donald Trump on Wednesday said he would sign an executive order to pull back on his administration’s highly controversial policy of separating undocumented immigrant children from their parents.cIt was a jarring reversal for the president who has been falsely stating for days that only Congress could fix the problem."
— [30]

It turns out that Trump made several false claims about this matter. More here: [31] - MrX 🖋 01:40, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support: As noted above, this has been widely publicized for several weeks now. pbp 18:45, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support inclusion in some form I was initially tempted to say that the content belonged on the 'Presidency' article but was persuaded by two arguments to include a succinct version here. Firstly the degree to which immigration issues have been a 'personal issue' with D Trump, secondly, a purely pragmatic - rather than policy - argument, namely that given the level of international coverage, it's borderline bizarre to not mention briefly here. Content should be kept as concise as possible though and should be tidied somewhat broadly as suggested by MelanieN. Pincrete (talk) 20:46, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose as I don't believe we did this for the Barack Obama article. This belongs in the Presidency of Donald Trump article. GoodDay (talk) 16:50, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

• @GoodDay: What the hell does this have to do with the Barack Obama article? -- Scjessey (talk) 18:45, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

AFAIK, the Obama administration began those border detention centers & also, that Democrats have been in favor strict immigration policies, since as far back at the Clinton administration. Separating children from parents, didn't begin under the Trump administration. GoodDay (talk) 21:33, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

@GoodDay: You are evidently misinformed, because everything you just said is wrong. The Obama administration, as with previous administrations, detained unaccompanied children at detention centers, but it was the Trump administration the first began forcibly separating families. And while it is true that Democrats have supported stricter immigration policies, that is only because Democrats have routinely cooperated with Republicans on legislation they don't like as part of regular "horse trading". Since the election of Barack Obama and the unprecedented levels of "no" and "hell no!" BS from Republicans (Merrick Garland, anybody?) the Democrats have been understandably less eager to get on board with Republican proposals. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:56, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not really interested in a political debate, here. My position hasn't changed on the aforementioned proposal. GoodDay (talk) 02:03, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support. The Immigration section not mentioning it is a glaring omission, and it feels like censorship. This is significant news, and we have a standalone article on the policy. The proposed text, though, is a little long. It only needs a few words, such as Trump's April 2018 "zero tolerance" policy in which children were separated from adults when crossing into the US, was suspended following widespread criticism. SilkTork (talk) 10:26, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
• Suppport At this point, given the level, breadth, and sustained nature of the coverage, it's reasonable to call it a defining event in his presidency and significantly more important than many things we currently mention in the article. --Aquillion (talk) 15:32, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

• OPPOSE - think something like this previously failed, largely as being a Presidency if anywhere. Think it still not a fit here for that reason. Side note that’s a bad title for the article/topic, unless someone wants to suggest the subject is well described without the word “children”? Also, frankly I think it would run amok here as it has elsewhere. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:38, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

  Markbassett, is it possible you posted this in the wrong section? I'm not aware that this has been proposed before the discussion immediately preceding this RfC. Also, are you able to cite a policy-based reason for opposing this material?- MrX 🖋 11:39, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

User:MrX there was a lot of thumbs scrolling to get here, but this is in the right place to put it. The main policies for the item belonging to Presidency article rather than here would be OFFTOPIC and UNDUE. I could also see ONUS and the PRESERVE playing in from the issues with V, NPOV, and NOR. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:50, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose – Given recent developments, the proposed text is already obsolete. No prejudice against inserting a summary of the affair once the situation is stabilized. — JFG ^talk 09:52, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

  The text is not obsolete, it just needs to be expanded to include that Trump caved under immense public pressure and that protest across the country have shut down or disrupted ICE facilities. There is no policy on Wikipedia that requires that a situation be stable before we write about it. If there were, a large portion of this article wouldn't exist and the presidency article would be a stub.- MrX 🖋 11:39, 25 June 2018 (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.

What wording to use

Several wordings have been proposed. I suggest we discuss the various proposed wordings here separately, so that if the decision is to include (too early to say; we should let it run for a week and get a neutral close), we don’t have to start a whole new discussion about what to say.

Version A: In April 2018, Trump enacted a "zero tolerance" policy overturning previous administrations' practice of making exceptions for families unlawfully crossing into the U.S. with children. By the sixth week, nearly 2000 children had been separated from their parents, culminating in demands from Democrats, Republicans, Trump allies, and religious groups that the policy be rescinded. Trump falsely asserted that his administration was merely following the law.

Sources

Version B: In April 2018, Trump enacted a "zero tolerance" policy of prosecuting everyone who enters the county illegally. This overturned previous administrations' practice of making exceptions for families with children, and resulted in the jailing of parents and their separation from their children. By the sixth week, nearly 2000 children had been separated from their parents, culminating in demands from Democrats, Republicans, Trump allies, and religious groups that the policy be rescinded. Trump falsely blamed the separations on the Democrats.}}

Sources

Version C: In April 2018, Trump enacted a "zero tolerance" immigration policy, taking adults unlawfully crossing into the U.S. into custody for criminal prosecution, and separating children from parents. By mid-June, more than 2,300 children had been placed in shelters, including "tender age" shelters for babies and toddlers, culminating in demands from Democrats, Republicans, Trump allies, and religious groups that the policy be rescinded. Trump falsely asserted that his administration was merely following the law.

Sources

Comments? --MelanieN (talk) 19:25, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

• Version A: it's succinct and covers all the main issues and the purpose on this page is to briefly cover the topic - linking to the main article. The only quibble (with all 3 versions), is the use of 'falsely'. I don't doubt that a wealth of sources have in various ways pointed out the 'inexactitude' of the Trump claims - I just wonder whether it's worth it to characterise the nature of this perverse piece of deflection. We either simply report the Trump 'defence', or we say who and why and how the 'defence' has been criticised as 'false'. I would go for straight 'report', since the text already states that the practice of prev. admins was being overturned. Pincrete (talk) 20:29, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
• Version B reads the best to me, particularly the This overturned previous administrations' practice of making exceptions for families with children language. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
• Comment. It's in dispute in RS that these are all illegal border crossings. To go for the "unlawful" entry lingo is to uncritically accept the claims made by a group of people who have lied ceaselessly on different aspects of this policy. I also think all options should contain the false claim that he was following the law AND the false claim that Democrats are at fault. As the options are laid out, we can only include one of the false claims. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:41, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

You’re right. "Unlawful" or "illegal" doesn’t apply to asylum seekers.

Under the applicable regulations, noncitizens apprehended in the U.S. by immigration authorities still have the constitutional right to a removal hearing that complies with the due process clause of the Constitution's Fifth Amendment. An immigration court at the removal hearing is tasked with evaluating whether noncitizens should be allowed to remain in America.
But the immigration courts are backlogged, and so a considerable amount of time — months and sometimes years — can elapse before removal hearings occur. In the past, noncitizens have been eligible for bond during this period, provided he or she does not pose a flight risk or danger to public safety. President Trump referred to this practice, which the law requires, disparagingly as "catch and release." However, Trump signed a memo in April ending the so-called “catch and release” of immigrants into the community. Not surprisingly, the number of noncitizens requesting a bond hearing in immigration court surged almost 40 percent during the first year of Trump’s administration, according to Reuters, as more and more noncitizens were denied bond by Immigration and Customes Enforcement officers.

(Johnson) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:04, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - I'd like to propose a version D:

Version D: In April 2018, Trump enacted a "zero tolerance" immigration policy that took adults unlawfully crossing into the U.S. into custody for criminal prosecution and forcibly separated children from parents, eliminating the policy of previous administrations that made exceptions for families with children. By mid-June, more than 2,300 children had been placed in shelters, including "tender age" shelters for babies and toddlers, culminating in demands from Democrats, Republicans, Trump allies, and religious groups that the policy be rescinded. Trump falsely asserted that his administration was merely following the law.

Sources

-- Scjessey (talk) 22:07, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

• Any of these are more or less fine, except for the sentence "Trump falsely blamed the separations on the Democrats." I don't think we should get too hung up on the specific wording at this point, because the underlying situation is evolving. For example, there are now claims that children have been forcibly given psychoactive drugs. Also, Trump has now capitulated on enforcement. What is important is that the key points be covered in the article, and that we allow for small copyedits to improve the wording or add to material as warranted.- MrX 🖋 22:46, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Also, I generally favor version D as a starting point, long as we don't get locked into that wording.18:13, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

What would you all think about a Version E, a single sentence as suggested by User:SilkTork above?

Version E Trump's April 2018 "zero tolerance" policy led to children being separated from adults when crossing the southern border; in June he ordered an end to the family separation following widespread criticism.

Sources

Could something like that possibly be added now, while we discuss whether to include more detailed information? What do you all think about the one-sentence approach? --MelanieN (talk) 14:29, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

It seems to me we cannot now add this anodyne wording, because it will be cited as "consensus version" a month from now when complete, verified NPOV language is still being debated here. SPECIFICO talk 15:39, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with SPECIFICO. The two key aspects of this whole outrage is that (a) children were forcibly separated from parents, and (b) Trump lied through his back teeth about why it was happening. Any inclusion that fails to mention either of these is a total waste of time. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:32, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I also agree with SPECIFICO and would be opposed to using such a short version because it might create the impression that we get our information by Pony Express.- MrX 🖋 18:13, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Children were separated from adults but we're no longer doing that so no harm, no foul? I was going for disingenuous but anodyne works for me, too. I oppose the one-sentence temporary approach as unacceptable. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:07, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, and whichever one we use, we can now add "On June 20, 2018, amid enormous political pressure to roll back his policy, Trump signed an executive order to end family separations at the the U.S. border. 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 23:29, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Sources

MelanieN, can we please let this incubate a bit more, at least until after we know what the EO reads? NBC states: Trump said the order "will solve that problem" of children being separated from their parents, but that it wouldn't end his administration's "zero tolerance" policy of charging everyone who attempts to cross the U.S.-Mexico border illegally. Also, the House is expected to vote on two immigration bills today (if they haven't already). ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:58, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

We won't be adding anything until the RfC above is closed. In the meantime there will definitely be a need to tweak the wording. --MelanieN (talk) 18:18, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Thx MelanieN, because that gives us some time to work on the above choices, and decide how best to present it, and where a clear summary will fit best. Please read this Vox article as it explains the dilemma, and so does this NBC analysis/commentary by Kevin R. Johnson, dean and Mabie-Apallas professor at UC Davis. I think both reflect the facts well without the passion of earlier breaking news reports. I challenge the wording that Trump "falsely asserted", and oppose inclusion of "falsely blamed" the Democrats which is a partisan POV (and even if consensus says include it, contentious statements require in-text attribution and should not be stated in WikiVoice. Regarding "Trump falsely asserted that his administration was merely following the law" - I don't see how that can possibly be accurate because they actually did comply with the law, specifically the landmark court decision known as the 1997 Flores agreement. RS support my position; however, it now appears that Trump's newly signed EO may not be compliant, unless modifications are made to eliminate the 20 day detention limit for children. ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:14, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, I agree with you that "falsely claimed he was following the law" is debatable. But "falsely blamed the Democrats" is undeniable. See my comment below where I provide five additional sources explicitly saying that. --MelanieN (talk) 14:54, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

@Atsme: the original Flores settlement concerned unaccompanied minors. It was expanded to accompanied minors by the 9th circuit court of appeals in 2016. wumbolo ^^^ 09:21, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Wumbolo, the sources keep referring to it as the Flores settlement and I couldn't remember the style of the appeal - (2016) Flores v Lynch - wherein the panel held that "...the district court erred in interpreting the Settlement to provide release rights to accompanying adults. The panel also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the government’s motion to amend the Settlement." Not much choice there but to comply which is why Congress needs to change the law - it is the only branch of government with the enumerated power to do so, not the president. He can issue an EO but it's temporary, and subject to litigation that can make it unenforceable. That's why the Obama admin had problems when they acted in noncompliance with the law, and why this mess dates back to prior administrations. We cannot/should not include cherrypicked material to spin the facts based on a single POV. As to your question above regarding which party will shoot down the immigration bills that will fix the mess - see this report. ^{Atsme📞📧} 12:14, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Neither RS you presented in your edit at 02:14, 22 June 2018, supports your position. Also, you’re confusing case law with statutory law, the Refugee Act of 1980. Please read your NBC source past paragraph 4 where you found (and subsequently misrepresented) this sentence: Known generally as the Flores settlement, this landmark decision limits the detention of migrant children. The source also mentions Flores v. Lynch (2016) and explains past and present administrations’ handling of asylum/immigration quite well. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:59, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

It seems to explain rather well the how and why it happened. Which parts do you have issues understanding? PackMecEng (talk) 13:27, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

STC, - your blanket criticisms are what's unsupported. Either strike or and please provide diffs, not time/date. Why do you think the sources I referenced do not support my position? What exactly do you consider to be my position? The law applies to the court's decision in the 1997 Flores agreement and was upheld for the most part in the 2016 appeal. In fact, the DOJ on Thursday asked the district court to modify the portion of the '97 court settlement that limits the detention of children to 20 days. Of course, the court can refuse. This issue has become politicized. The Atlantic did a good job explaining what happened to the Democratic party between Obama's election and today which can be summed up in a single quote, "A larger explanation is political. Between 2008 and 2016, Democrats became more and more confident that the country’s growing Latino population gave the party an electoral edge." The article also points out that "Alongside pressure from pro-immigrant activists came pressure from corporate America, especially the Democrat-aligned tech industry, which uses the H-1B visa program to import workers." I imagine it is highly unlikely that Democrats are going to support any immigration reform that doesn't allow for open borders and an easy path to citizenship, and there are some Republicans who feel the same way. Based on what we've seen of Trump's actions so far, he's neither Republican nor Democrat - he's a populist - and this happens to be his bio which should reflect that about him per RS. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:32, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

highly unlikely that Democrats are going to support any immigration reform that doesn't allow for open borders Come on, Atsme, that is Trump propaganda. No Democrat calls for "open borders". Many of them call for more generous immigration laws, but "open borders" is just a GOP smear. --MelanieN (talk) 14:57, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I can't think of one single Dem that has asked for "open borders", and you're claiming Dems as a group will insist on it. O3000 (talk) 15:02, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Extended discussion about whether Democrats support "open borders" ~Awilley (talk) 01:59, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Democrats as a group going for open boarders is not exactly a new concept. GOP smear is just the flavor of the day. [32] [33][34][35][36]. PackMecEng (talk) 15:27, 22 June 2018 (UTC) The first article is a writer speaking his own opinion and states that liberals are NOT for open borders. The second is a professor of geography speaking his own opinion about what Dems SHOULD be for. I believe the third article is a Socialist talking about a Socialist. The next says Reps are accusing Dems of being for open borders, but falsely. The last article appears to have been written by a founder of an anti-immigrations group. O3000 (talk) 15:50, 22 June 2018 (UTC) Thanks, Objective. I was about to post a similar analysis of Pack's five sources: None of them cite any actual Democrat calling for open borders or anything similar. And if you Google "Democrat" "open borders" [37] you find lots of hits - all of them quoting people like Donald Trump, Paul Ryan, and Tom Cotton. This is a right-wing myth. It is not something any Democrat proposes or favors. --MelanieN (talk) 16:03, 22 June 2018 (UTC) A good bit to do with google and Trump statements is set the date to before Trump said it and see what was being said then. The first one, it is giving reasons they should be for it from a progressive viewpoint. Second is covered by the same principle. Third is a socialist whole aligns with democrats yes, so what? On four says not exactly true and gives nuances on democrat base wanting pretty much the same thing. While written by an anti-immigration person still gives perspective on what has been going on. They are valid articles giving viewpoints of the base. I could provide more if you like but the point stands that it is not some wacko fringe claim, but even if it is a vocal minority of democrats it is something that has been advocated for. PackMecEng (talk) 17:37, 22 June 2018 (UTC) The claim was: I imagine it is highly unlikely that Democrats are going to support any immigration reform that doesn't allow for open borders Has a single member of Congress called for such? In fact, the opposite is true. It is highly unlikely that a single Dem would support open borders. This is a fringe claim. O3000 (talk) 17:55, 22 June 2018 (UTC) O3000 and MelanieN have adequately impeached the five-card draw there but I must say #5 can't be called anything other than an insistent anti-immigration fringe ideologue. She's not getting you to the finish line on this one. SPECIFICO talk 18:14, 22 June 2018 (UTC) The argument has been about the base and the movement, not dems voting in office. Which is why I and the articles mostly talk about what the base is calling for. No need to move the goal posts. Also I do not buy that we cannot use partisan sources to support a statement, we do that all the time. PackMecEng (talk) 18:24, 22 June 2018 (UTC) First, the claim wasn’t about the base. It was about Congress.. Secondly, the articles didn’t say what you claimed, which is clearly fringe. Despite what the President claims, no one is in favor of letting in ISIS. But, now we’re just boring people; so I'll stop. O3000 (talk) 18:30, 22 June 2018 (UTC) Melanie - you didn't include my whole statement: ....some Republicans feel the same way. Corporate America comes in all flavors. I just wish we'd stick to the dry facts - dispassionate tone - because for every "he/she blamed the Democrats" there is a "he/she blamed the Republicans", and it's just not very encyclopedic for us to get involved in the blame game. It serves -0- purpose beyond raising the cackles of the opposition. In response to the open borders challenge...well, I think some on the right see it as the Democrats wanting open borders because they're not enforcing immigration laws, which explains how it became a Repub talking point, but then there was HRC's leaked email: Chicago Tribune, ABC News, and NBC which quotes: "My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the Hemisphere." Of course, she back-peddled when the backlash hit, but c'mon - it's no different from when HW spoke the words "new world order", or when Trump misstates something and it goes viral, except for the fact that his misstatements are referred to as lies and are not only included in articles, they're expounded upon - - it's unencyclopedic but neither here nor there at this point. Such material didn't stick in the articles of past presidents and I seriously doubt it's going to stick here because it lacks long-term encyclopedic value. Look at how much trivia MrX recently removed, and I'm willing to wager that more will follow. I just think we should exercise a bit more discretion when first deciding so we don't have to do it after the fact. Atsme📞📧 16:46, 22 June 2018 (UTC) You’re bringing up a sarcastically written article about a stolen e-mail talking about a dream of an idyllic future. The claim that Dems in Congress (or any Reps for that matter) will block immigration legislation unless it includes open borders is evidence-free. O3000 (talk) 17:00, 22 June 2018 (UTC) O3000, I think we can agree that most articles that oppose one's POV may well be deemed "sarcastically written". As for the claim about Dems blocking legislation based on an open border agenda, well, I haven't proposed inclusion, but when determining what to include based on all significant views, it's hard to overlook Senator Durbin & Mayor Emanuel going on a 24 hr hunger strike back in 2014 to pressure Congress for immigration reform. Emanuel's position has been consistent over the years in that "...law enforcement should not be focused on those who enter the country illegally, but on those who commit violent crimes while here." per NBC5. If immigration laws are neither enforced nor the focus, that isn't any different from having open borders - it's simply a devious way of getting it done. As for the blame game, The Hill reported that Repubs blame Dems for blocking immigration reform, and of course the Dems blame Repubs - so it's back and forth. I suggested leaving it out all together, and to focus only on the facts; i.e., the law & immigration policy/reform and what the gvt. is doing to fix the problems. Atsme📞📧 18:08, 22 June 2018 (UTC) I think we can agree that most articles that oppose one's POV may well be deemed "sarcastically written" No, I most certainly do not agree with that. And, immigration reform and open borders are entirely different concepts. O3000 (talk) 18:18, 22 June 2018 (UTC) Not enforcing immigration law and not passing immigration reform accomplishes the same thing...nothing, which is the same thing open borders accomplish. Atsme📞📧 19:45, 22 June 2018 (UTC) So, you are saying that Dems in Congress will not allow any immigration legislation to pass unless it states that there will be zero enforcement of immigration laws. Fine, you win, Democrats would allow ISIS to roll over the border en masse. O3000 (talk) 19:51, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I thought time and date was clear enough (how many edits at the exact time and date can one editor reasonably make?). Apparently I was wrong, so here’s the diff. I’ won’t engage in an argument about whose interpretation of the sources is correct; I’ve said what I have to say, and other editors can read the sources and make up their own minds. An off-topic remark, since you brought up the H-1B visa program for highly skilled workers: The Trump administration hasn’t expanded that or the H-2A program for seasonal farm workers, but it raised the cap on H-2B visas for guest workers from 66,000 to 81,000 for fiscal year 2017. (Three days later, Trump's properties asked for permission to hire 76 workers through the program.) Source: Vox.Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:06, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Atsme because for every "he/she blamed the Democrats" there is a "he/she blamed the Republicans", and it's just not very encyclopedic for us to get involved in the blame game OK, good. We are getting back to the actual wording of this material. I have provided half a dozen Reliable Sources saying that Trump falsely blamed the Democrats for this situation. Please show me the reliable sources saying that Trump blamed the Republicans. Bottom line, we are not the ones playing the blame game; Trump is. That was an important aspect of the coverage and I think we should include it, per WP:WEIGHT. --MelanieN (talk) 18:01, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, MelanieN, I was hoping to not make it about Dem vs Rep or Trump vs Dem, etc. or trying to determine what factual information actually supports "falsely" which is primarily based on partisan opinion. I'd like to see us move away from that and focus more on longterm, matter-of-fact encyclopedic content. Repubs have their own issues per this CNN article (which I thought was well-written less the clickbait headline). It doesn't actually point a partisan finger; rather it covers the bills that were proposed and the various views within a single party - good stuff. There are RS that cover the Dem's perspective equally as well so we really are better off to let the prose speak for itself regarding POV issues. All we have to do is simply state the facts, not blatant partisan opinions that resembles mudslinging like what we see during a campaign. Our readers will take away whatever it is they need to take away if we simply present the facts, and not allow our pedia to fall victim to the politics. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:00, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, this discussion is not about bills or immigration reform. Congress has been unable to do anything about that for decades (although there was a bill that passed the Senate and WOULD have passed the House if Boehner had allowed it to come up for a vote [38]). No doubt both sides blame the other, but that's not what we are talking about. We are talking about the separation of families at the border. Trump has said, repeatedly, that it's the Democrats' fault. The fact that he says it is massively reported. The statement that he has tried to put the blame on the Democrats is not partisan opinion; it is based on Trump's own statements and tweets. The fact that it is NOT actually the Democrats' fault is also massively supported by multiple neutral reliable sources. That's why I think that sentence should be in the article. That should be all we are talking about here. --MelanieN (talk) 19:52, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Melanie, Melanie, Melanie...pah-lease...let's get on the same page...Vox "The comparison to Obama’s policies is especially relevant now that the Trump administration is seeking to keep families in immigration detention for weeks or months. The reason that Trump can’t do that under a current judicial order is that the courts stepped in to stop Obama from doing it." It speaks for me. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:45, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Still cherry-picking quotes from the sources contradicting your POV, I see. Here's another quote from your source: Reversion to the Obama-era norm isn’t what the Trump administration wanted, though. The president took a ton of pride in the low number of border crossings in the early months of his term — he kept bragging about it even as apprehensions crept back up in fall of 2017. When he started realizing that people were still coming in to seek asylum, he got upset that the US couldn’t just shut down the border — and pushed into action a policy agenda that would crack down on anyone trying to come to the US without papers, especially if they crossed into the country illegally. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 21:07, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

• Version D reads the best for me, although was the policy eliminated? Wasn't it previous administrations failing to act on the legislation, as opposed to Trump, who did. scope_creep (talk) 01:10, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

+ Plus the latter half of A with the main players included. scope_creep (talk) 01:14, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

• Version D is perfect, with perhaps some copyediting and elaborating on the final sentence (this is much more significant than a typical Trump falsehood). Update with further executive developments. I generally support covering this as it is a major event; and support per MelanieN. wumbolo ^^^ 17:37, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
• Comment I would suggest dropping the falsely asserted following the law part since it is a little misleading. It was within the law the charge and hold the parents and it is also the law that after a parent is charged the child cannot stay with them. But the law was not expressly separate parents from children, that was an effect of charging the parents. PackMecEng (talk) 02:12, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
• Comment I am OK with any of the proposals except for the last sentence. Yes, he claimed he was following the law; it can be argued about whether that claim was true or false. But he blamed Democrats every time he opened his mouth. [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] Even when he claims he is “just following the law,” he falsely claims it is a Democrat law. So I much prefer "falsely blamed the Democrats" over "falsely claimed he was just following the law." --MelanieN (talk) 14:50, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

What credible source do we have that Trump's "just following the law" claims were true? WRT "credible" -- Do these also tell us that his reversal violated the law? SPECIFICO talk 15:37, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I'd be okay with changing "Trump falsely asserted that his administration was merely following the law" to "Trump told a series of lies about the reason behind his policy change, and blamed everybody but himself, then concocted a ludicrous publicity stunt of him signing a totally unnecessary executive order before dispatching his wife to Texas wearing a jacket that said she gave no fucks." -- Scjessey (talk) 17:37, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I see what you mean and it might be more accurate, but should be in a more encyclopedic tone. PackMecEng (talk) 17:45, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Like - MrX 🖋 18:03, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

• Version D but with major changes - for reasons already discussed above. First, our article on the subject is under Trump administration family separation policy not "zero tolerance policy" and wording should be consistent. Second, as Snoogans^2 says above, the policy doesn't apply to just "illegal" but people who have legitimately tried to apply for asylum have also been affected. I also think the "of previous administration" should be removed. Until April 6th, it was his administration's policy too. Just say "previous policy". Last sentence is fine and needs to be included.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:35, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
• Version E is the least incendiary and accurately reflects reality.MONGO 18:45, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

• @MONGO: It's certainly the least incendiary, but that's because it contains absolutely NONE of the noteworthy stuff, and thus doesn't actually reflect any kind of reality at all. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:41, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

• Version E seems like the best if we are going to include something about this. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:30, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Three major factual inaccuracies here with A, B, C, and D

There are three major factual problems with A, B, C, and D. One of these has been pointed out above, but the other two have not.

1. A, B, and D reference "exceptions" from prior administration. This is confusing and inaccurate: "Exceptions" to what? Prosecution? Detention? Civil deportation proceedings? Before Trump, the federal government has used discretion to determine what course to take. "Exceptions" implies that the "default" option is criminal prosecution, and that's not true either historically or legally.
2. A, B, and C presume that apprehended border-crossers are necessarily "illegal" (at least a portion of families subject to the policy are asylees/asylum-seekers/refugees).
3. A, B, C, and D state that "Trump allies" called for the policy to be rescinded. But only some Trump allies made this call; others supported the separation of families.

E is factually accurate (and so is the best of what we have), but too short/lacks context. We need to find a new option here. Neutrality^talk 15:46, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

If you have time, could you try a new draft. I think it needs to cover the worldwide condemnation of this policy for its human rights violations, the fact that Trump, Sessions, and the DHS Sec'y lied about it, that it was implemented without procedures and safeguards to ensure the families would be reunited, that due process is being denied the separated children, and that many asylum-seekers were shunted away from legal crossings to unmanned crossings at which they could be arrested as wetbacks. Piece of cake. Any other key points? SPECIFICO talk 16:42, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Closing, and continued discussion

The RFC has been open for 9 days and discussion has died down; last comment was 2 days ago. And there have been new developments which make some previous wording suggestions obsolete. We really need to reach a resolution on this. There has been massive participation for an RfC. By my count there were 27 in favor of including something and 14 opposed (including 3 or 4 “oppose for now” comments”) . I think it’s time to add something and I’m going to boldly do so.

In the “what wording” section, not everyone participated and things have changed. But of those who did comment, version D got the most support, so I will use it with the following changes: The “following the law” or “blaming the Democrats” sentence has been very controversial in the main RfC discussion, so I’m going to leave it out pending further discussion. And I’m going to add a sentence about the new executive order.

Here’s a place for continued discussion, but please let’s make our comments here, and not just start rewording what’s in the article according to our own preference without discussing it first. That way lies madness edit warring - and we all know about the DS to prevent edit warring at this article in particular. --MelanieN (talk) 00:07, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

P.S. Something I think we will need to add, is analysis of exactly what the policy is now, which seems to be very unclear. Also there was a judge's order ordering a reuniting of families which should be included. --MelanieN (talk) 00:15, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

How does an involved editor close a disputed RfC after 9 days? I am all in favor of your adding text as an interim step to keep the article up to date, but why wouldn't this run for the usual month in the absence of a snow close? SPECIFICO talk 00:15, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

There is no 30 day requirement. "An RfC should last until enough comment has been received that consensus is reached, or until it is apparent it won't be. Legobot assumes an RfC has been forgotten and automatically ends it 30 days after it begins, to avoid a buildup of stale discussions cluttering the lists and wasting commenters' time. But editors should not wait for that; if one of the reasons listed above applies, someone should end it manually, as soon as it is clear the discussion has run its course." In discussion with Atsme I think I suggested we should keep it open for a minimum of a week, and in fact that's about how long it took for discussion to die out. Yes, I closed it even though I am involved, because it seemed the discussion had run its course. And it seemed important to get something into the article once it was clear that was the community's desire. If you want me to say that I added text as an interim step but will leave the RfC open, I can do that. But it seems like kind of a useless formality considering the large volume of comments that were already made, and the fact that discussion had died down. --MelanieN (talk) 01:06, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Not concerned about the wording but the process. I always thought any Rfc is closed by a nonparticipating party.--MONGO 01:11, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Generally involved closing is fine for non-controversial close, but otherwise best practice is uninvoled. I will say it is against how I voted, but having said that, I doubt anyone else would of closed it differently (even if they should of dagnabbit!). Could also try closure review at WP:AN if you think it is out of line, but boy that sounds painful.PackMecEng (talk) 01:36, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

No need for closure review. If people think I should revert the close, I will. (About to go out so I'll see what people say tomorrow.) --MelanieN (talk) 01:38, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm reverting the close since it's been challenged. But let's keep further discussion here, except for participating in the RfC itself. --MelanieN (talk) 01:44, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Dead is dead. As Pope Julius II said to Michelangelo: "When will you make an end?" Discuss the text. O3000 (talk) 01:41, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't contest the closing (although I would understand if someone did, and MONGO is correct). The RfC already includes a wording proposal, so any consensus automatically includes it as well. Version D is a contender for alternate wording. Let's add one or the other to the article, then we can discuss adding additional material as warranted. - MrX 🖋 01:42, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Also, SPECIFICO, RfCs do not need to run for 30 days. I had already requested a close for this one because of the broad participation.- MrX 🖋 01:44, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

As I said, I think the text Melanie added was the right thing to do have in the article to update an important point. I just wonder what we gain from closing an RfC that's fairly evenly split among many alternatives. After all it's a good thing to get outside comment and that does not accumulate as quickly as participation from the high-frequency editors here. However my primary concern relates to the general issue of involved editors closing any thread that doesn't have acknowledged or obvious consensus. MelanieN usually gets these things right, but there are other less diligent editors, including some who are not all that collaborative, who step in as emcee or moderator and who just create problems and more work for everyone vetting and repairing their "helpful" closes. SPECIFICO talk 02:23, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I can close this if an uninvolved editor is wanted, but if everyone thinks MelanieN will/did/can handle it properly, there's no need to rock the boat. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 02:44, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I can also close this if needed. I don't see a problem with closing it earlier than 30 days given the participation. ~Awilley (talk) 03:20, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Awilley. --MelanieN (talk) 05:14, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

OK, so now that that's settled (and sorry, I didn't intend to create drama), let's talk about what needs to be added. Earlier I suggested trying to clarify the current situation, but it's still so unclear - there are so many conflicting versions and confusing tweets - that I think we probably shouldn't try at this time. However, we do need to add the judge ordering that families be reunited in a specific time frame. I'm just back from an evening out and on my way to bed, so if someone wants to give it a shot be my guest. Otherwise I'll do it in the morning. --MelanieN (talk) 05:19, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Support D, but recommend replacing "unlawfully crossing into" with the neutral language used in US immigration law, "improperly entering". I’m aware that the sources mostly use "unlawfully crossing/entering" but are we bound by the exact adjective and verb when we are neither quoting directly or paraphrasing? Asylum seekers often have no other choice than to "enter improperly" in order to be able to apply for asylum, and the law allows them to apply within 12 months from their "improper entry," at which point - I assume - the "improper" part becomes moot. We should hold off on mentioning the effort to reunite the kids with their parents because the current info available is too chaotic and nebulous. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:14, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

• Again, I knew when this broke that once it got in the article it would be a magnet for further expansion and coatracking. A brief mention is all that's needed as this entire detail should be better placed in the Presidency article. I do not support the expansion here.--MONGO 10:19, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

That's not expansion. That's the exact sentence that was proposed in the RfC, and in versions A, C, and D above. So what you're saying is that you still don't support what you didn't support in the RfC.- MrX 🖋 10:45, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I challenged your addition as I do not see this consensus you claim and the comments you make below indicate my concerns about coatracking are not unfounded.MONGO 12:49, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

You can't challenge something that has a formal consensus by removing it. That's called editing against consensus. Your view, or the view of small minority who opposed this sentence, does not take precedence over the substantial majority who support it. Feel free to start a discussion about removing it and see if you can get a new consensus.- MrX 🖋 13:55, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

A formal consensus as you put it when the Rfc was closed by a participant in the discussion on a disputed subject is not a consensus at all.MONGO 14:02, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN reopened the Rfc before I made my edit so the Rfc was not closed.MONGO 14:04, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

OK, but the RfC has since been closed by Awilley.- MrX 🖋 14:10, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

• There are several things that we should consider including in the section:

1. Protest across the US, including some that have shut down ICE facilities. See Protests against Trump administration family separation policy and Occupy ICE
2. Judge's order ordering a reuniting of families
3. Lawsuit by 17 states
4. The 44% of white evangelicals who support laws banning refugees
5. DHS lies about the policy's existence
6. ProPublica tape

There may be others and of course the situation is still developing.- MrX 🖋 11:01, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

• No thanks.MONGO 12:24, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

  Indeed, no thanks. All this agitation replays the "Muslim ban" circus all over again. Fitting the atmosphere around this whole presidency, really. I predict 500 days of pundits bickering, followed by a Supreme Court ruling for Christmas Eve, 2019. — JFG ^talk 22:23, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

There are a few parts that are not important enough for here. The 44% and propublica mostly, which part are you referencing with the DHS lies? PackMecEng (talk) 13:12, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Sure, it was just a list to get the discussion going. Feel free to add to it.- MrX 🖋 13:55, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I guess my next question would be what kind of target for length are we shooting for? If it is like the choices above and about 3 sentences going to have to be fairly concise. PackMecEng (talk) 14:16, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

This can't be compressed as if it were his World Wrestlng prize. This relates to his personal core and his political core and its elements need to be enumerated, even if they are not fully detailed in this article. Also recall his angry rant about Hispanics infesting the USA the day after he was forced to renounce the child separations. SPECIFICO talk 14:22, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't think we should expand the material too much. Perhaps 6-10 sentences based on the extent of coverage to date. Of course, it's an ongoing saga, for example with Trump suggesting that due process be suspended for asylum seekers.- MrX 🖋 15:07, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure I agree with that. That is longer and more detail than the purposed RFC addition or any of the choices after. PackMecEng (talk) 15:15, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I think it should be a paragraph. Comparable to the other 1-paragraph two to four paragraph subsections in the "Immigration" section. No more, and not every detail like the ones suggested above. This is a biography, we can include only the most highly reported or most significant aspects of this issue. --MelanieN (talk) 19:43, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with that, but we should not waste our limited space repeating White House talking points. We need to briefly summarize what actually happened, not what might have happened, e.g. if Asylum-seekers had not been denied entry at lawful crossings, if kids with families had arrived solo, if there actually were a law that required whatever, if these actions had not been accompanied by hate speech from POTUS and distortions from his top deputies. SPECIFICO talk 20:06, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Looks like I saw this RfA too late. I understand that the subject of this article is not popular among many editors of this project, and that many sources have a opposing political views than what the subject of this article appears to have; that said, those anti-subject of this article narrative should not spill over into Wikipedia in accordance with the policies and guidelines about biography articles. That said, a summary of the subject's time in office as POTUS which is neutrally worded and well sourced should be included, but details should be in the primary article regarding the Administration, or a sub-topic of an event relating to the Administration. I expect my opinion to be lost in the wind, but forever documented in Wikipedia's great ability to archive conversations.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:13, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Comment on content, not editors, not even unnamed editors. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:18, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

RightCowLeftCoast: It may be lost in the wind via archiving, but your comments are well taken by me, and I couldn't agree more with what you've said. The basic purpose of these articles as well as the reasons for and how to edit them has been lost to manipulation for satisfying political agendas rather than writing and preserving factual accuracy. Used to be you could count on long-time, experienced editors and admins to do the right thing in regard to this type of behavior, but even that is - by and large - no longer happening. As a result, the hope of Wikipedia becoming a legitimate source of reference and reliability is gone. Sad, truly sad, as well as disheartening. This is why we are losing good editors by the droves. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:50, 4 July 2018 (UTC) Please comment on content and not your bad faith assumptions about other editors. O3000 (talk) 19:04, 4 July 2018 (UTC) Seconded. That was a whole lot of this, if you ask me. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:24, 5 July 2018 (UTC) I'm sorry the deeper meaning and significance of the comments was lost on you both. The continued absence of understanding is a significant part of the problem both RCLC and I were addressing. More importantly, those who get the deeper meaning know it's better to be part of a solution, rather than stay part of the problem. What follows is a matter of which of the two roads one chooses. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:05, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Travel ban

I'm seeking consensus to change this sentence in the lead:

During his presidency, Trump ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, citing security concerns; a revised version of the ban was implemented after legal challenges.

to:

During his presidency, Trump ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, citing security concerns; a revised version of the ban was implemented after legal challenges. The ban was upheld by the Supreme Court in a 5-4 ruling.

In light of the Supreme Court ruling.[44] I'm not married to this wording, but we should update the lead accordingly.- MrX 🖋 16:15, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

If we're going to update the wording in the lead, it should be made shorter, not longer. I have no suggestion on a text yet. — JFG ^talk 16:24, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Disagree with JFG. A SCOTUS ruling to uphold a presidential order so hotly discussed, contested, and litigated for 18 months deserves more than a quick mention in the lead. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:28, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, shorter would be better, How about "During his presidency, Trump ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, which was upheld by the Supreme Court after legal challenges."? - MrX 🖋 16:37, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support expansion, but suggest additional expansion for clarity: The revised ban was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in a 5-4 ruling along ideological lines. It's important to say it was the revised ban (V3.0) that was upheld, not the earlier bans enacted by the Trump administration. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:36, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

• It should be possible to indicate the nature of the revision(s) in a single sentence - otherwise it is not clear that the initial ban violated fundamental Constitutional principals. SPECIFICO talk 16:40, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

• To be clear, I meant that sentence to be an alternative to MrX's wording, not an addition. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:42, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

• Alternative - perhaps this would be better: During his presidency, Trump ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, citing security concerns; a revised version of the ban was implemented after legal challenges and later upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in a 5-4 ruling along ideological lines. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:44, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with inserting opinion about "ideological lines" in the lead. — JFG ^talk 16:53, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

It's not an opinion. It's in the vast majority of reliable sources already. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:54, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of it is an opinion or not is excessive detail for the lead of this article. A shorter version would be preferred and getting rid of "ideological lines" seems like a good place to start. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:20, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

• Building on MrX's suggestion, how about this:

Trump ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, which was legally challenged; a revised version was upheld by the Supreme Court.

Still short, accurate and chronological, with all relevant links preserved for more detail. I have deliberately omitted the "During his presidency" part, which will depend on where this phrase is placed; it is not covered by current consensus. The "citing security concerns" bit could still be added if editors feel it's important enough (that would keep us closest to prior consensus). — JFG ^talk 16:52, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

No. 5-4 along ideological lines is important. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:53, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

This fact is certainly worth mentioning in the relevant articles, and perhaps in the body here. Too much detail for the lead. — JFG ^talk 16:54, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Nonsense. Hardly any words for a key detail. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:56, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Many many Supreme Court decisions are split along "ideological lines", there is nothing exceptional enough to mention here (the lede section of the presidential BLP, not an article about the contested executive order or the SC decision itself). — JFG ^talk 17:34, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the vote count is too much detail for the lead. It belongs in the body of the article. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:47, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

• Any of the proposals so far are fine with me. I prefer brevity.- MrX 🖋 16:57, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Early in his presidency, Trump ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, citing security concerns. A revised version of the ban, amended to mitigate the religious bias of the original, was implemented after legal challenges. The revised version was upheld by the US Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision along ideological lines.

(I am indifferent to the "along ideological lines" -- that can be covered in the separate article about the ban or in the body of this article. SPECIFICO talk 17:25, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Most of the reliable sources covering today's ruling make a point of saying the ruling was along ideological lines, and that had Obama not been obstructed by McConnell it likely would've gone the other way. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:53, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Sure, and had Trump not been elected, we all would be discussing something else. Hanging on to regrets over Merrick Garland today does not help us decide what is relevant enough to this lede section. — JFG ^talk 17:57, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Did you not read what I said earlier? It's reliable sources making the point about the ideological lines, not me. Virtually EVERY article discussing the ruling talks about it, and the vast majority refer back to the Garland decision. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:03, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Scjessey, you can count on getting personal disparagement and deflection when there's no substantive objection to your position. My "indifferent" is because I think we can link to lots of detail in other articles for the legal issues, the opinions, and the politicization of this court. SPECIFICO talk 18:59, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

@Scjessey: And I suppose you did read what I wrote, viz. This fact is certainly worth mentioning in the relevant articles, and perhaps in the body here. Too much detail for the lead. I feel we must just agree to disagree on the appropriate weight of this point of detail. — JFG ^talk 19:15, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support Scjessey's alternative version. It's important to know that it was the ban revised after legal challenges and also that the judges decided along ideological lines. If anyone thinks it's too long for the lead, then lets remove "calling the investigation a politically motivated "witch hunt." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:34, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support SPECIFICO's version although I'm not sure what the "along ideological lines" part means. L293D (☎ • ✎) 18:07, 26 June 2018 (UTC) striking to support another option below. L293D (☎ • ✎) 22:39, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@L293D: It means that all of the conservative judges voted one way and all the liberal judges voted another. A related phrase, "along party lines", meaning the division was between Republicans and Democrats, is often used interchangably. They don't mean the same thing, though when applied in the US they usually are. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:06, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

While I'm at it, I should mention that basically every Supreme Court case splits along party lines, ±1 judge. Until his death, Antonin Scalia was the wild card on the SC: you could predict with pretty much complete accuracy how every judge would vote except for him, and it often came down to his vote. Anyway, the party split here isn't particularly remarkable and shouldn't be mentioned in the lead; everyone familiar with the Supreme Court (and the judicial system at large) knows it is an extension rather than mediator of partisan politics. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 03:56, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I feel compelled to mention that it is simply not true that "basically every Supreme Court case splits along party lines" -- less than 25% of decisions are decided 5-3 or 5-4, and significantly more cases are decided unanimously. Neutrality^talk 04:07, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Well the Trump-haters are most certainly dominating the content of this article. It is so full of opinion already that it will take decades to clean up. This is exactly the type of brain-washing propaganda that brings more and more free thinking people to support Trump. News flash - since you apparently didn't grasp this fact after the election...Most Americans prefer to draw their own opinions, forcing your views down their throats only turns them away.ISAnerd (talk) 18:25, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

• (conditional) Oppose - clarity is needed because key points have been omitted regarding the ban & decision, which makes the material come across a bit POVish and leaves readers wondering why these things happened. I've included suggestions (green text) for the language that should be added for clarity and compliance with NPOV - BALANCE:

1. Trump issued a travel ban, titled "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States"
2. The ban affected several Muslim-majority countries that support terrorist activities, or where such activities are known to exist. <-- it's about terrorism, not Muslims;
3. Implementation of the ban had been delayed by legal challenges - a series of lower court decisions had ruled the ban unconstitutional.
4. In June 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the ban as a "legitimate exercise of executive branch authority" in a 5-4 ruling, reversing the lower court decisions. A good RS to cite is USA Today. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:43, 26 June 2018 (UTC) ^{Adding that I'm ok with these suggestions being in the body text in lieu of the lede. 18:45, 26 June 2018 (UTC)}

• Support original version, oppose SPECIFICO's version - The 1st version is fine because it lets the reader draw their own conclusion, but the second one (with the "along ideological lines") has a pretty negative undertone to the decision, so I don't think it's appropriate. I'd support it if that line was excluded entirely. Jdcomix (talk) 21:11, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I think we should eliminate "Muslim-majority countries". In the version SCOTUS upheld, two countries are not Muslim-majority. (That's how he got around the religious discrimination angle.) --MelanieN (talk) 22:46, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely not - The ban is the result of Trump's calculated plan to ban Muslims from our shores. The fact that Trump threw in a couple of other countries after the fact does not change that. - MrX 🖋 22:55, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Somehow we need to convey that this is the "Muslim Ban" of the 2016 campaign but with 2 countries thrown in to improve the odds after several judicial stays. The "partisan 5-4" bit need not go in the lead or even in this article, but we need to cover the "Muslim Ban" part and cover how the Administration successfully framed the constitutional issue by throwing in NK and VZ. I mean, how many NK immigrants have we had in the past 50 years? 3 maybe? SPECIFICO talk 22:59, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

From what I've read in places like TIME, "Muslim majority" is still being used as a short adjective to describe the ban, with the information that MelanieN cited elaborated on if they actually discuss the ban in detail. The phrase that I seem to read frequently is "the ban on travel from several Muslim-majority countries." Given this is how it is still being described, I'd say its use appropriate, even if it isn't as specific as we would like. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:14, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Come on, MrX, there was never a "calculated plan to ban Muslims from our shores". Yes, there was over-the-top campaign rhetoric, but executive orders (even the first one) did not target the largest Muslim countries: Pakistan, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Nigeria, Turkey, Malaysia, etc. Time to move on. — JFG ^talk 23:03, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

It looks like someone undid the hatting of part of this. It's all still irrelevant. It was fine when we quibbling about this to determine the wording of an edit, but now we're quibbling for the sake of quibbling. Focus, please. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 02:03, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Bullshit.- MrX 🖋 23:12, 26 June 2018 (UTC) Yes, bullshit campaign rhetoric. — JFG talk 23:15, 26 June 2018 (UTC) (edit conflict) "Bullshit". —Compassionate727 (T·C) 23:18, 26 June 2018 (UTC) Doesn't anybody remember when Obama included Iran, Iraq, Sudan and Syria in the travel restrictions that he signed into law in 2015, or when his DHS expanded the list to include Libya, Somalia and Yemen, calling them "countries of concern"? I don't recall any claims of Muslim bias or outrage against Obama. The U.S. State Dept. listed Iran, Syria and Sudan as "state sponsors of terrorism", and Iraq, Libya, Somalia and Yemen as "terrorist safe havens". Oh, but Trump had a "calculated plan to ban Muslims from our shores"? Got POV? Atsme📞📧 23:51, 26 June 2018 (UTC) Adding - the Politifact article I linked to above is dated prior to the modifications made to Trump’s EO. Also, Judge Roberts said of the modified EO:"The [order] is expressly premised on legitimate purposes: preventing entry of nationals who cannot be adequately vetted and inducing other nations to improve their practices," Roberts says. "The text says nothing about religion." per CNBC 10:38, 27 June 2018 (UTC) I was not going to get involved in this discussion, but could not help myself when yet again we see a Trump fan wanting to talk about Obama. From afar, it looks pathetic. I have news. He has retired. HiLo48 (talk) 00:00, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

• Adding that the Supreme Court upheld the ban is important or else we have only the older version which leaves the audience wondering the current status if they are not aware of the issues. Not sure on exact wording though. I'd not include "along partisan lines" or anything like that.--MONGO 23:20, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
• The Court didn’t uphold the ban itself; rather, the Court vacated a preliminary injunction against the (third iteration of) the ban, as the majority found a lack of likelihood of success on the merits. They didn’t rule on the merits themselves. So we can’t say that they actually upheld the ban itself. It seems like a technical distinction, but it is significant in law. Neutrality^talk 03:51, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
• Question: Can't "implemented after legal challenges" be reasonably interpreted to include the Supreme Court's ruling? I'm not sure it's necessary to mention in the lead at all. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 04:00, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
• The Court upheld the ban. Every source says so.[45][46][47][48][49] That includes NBC which Neutrality used a source to force Wikipedia to make a contested, controversial statement in Wikipedia's voice at the IG report article. Jerry the Bellybutton Elf (talk) 13:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

"Upheld the ban" is what virtually all sources are saying. --MelanieN (talk) 16:04, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Exactly...so why is Neutrality trying to put his opinions into the article instead of referring to the sources? Jerry the Bellybutton Elf (talk) 00:39, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

• We certainly do need to change this sentence, and soon. We should get rid of “implemented after legal challenges” which is out of date and inaccurate; the implementations kept getting stopped by lower courts. How about something like this: During his presidency, Trump ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, citing security concerns. In response to legal challenges he revised the ban twice. The third version was upheld by the Supreme Court in June 2018 in a 5-4 ruling. --MelanieN (talk) 16:16, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

the ban also was for some non muslim countries עם ישראל חי (talk) 16:26, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I argued for that point above (that's how he got around the religious discrimination problem). But most sources are saying "Muslim-majority countries" even though it isn't strictly correct for the third version - the one they approved. It looks as if most people want to stay with that wording because reliable sources are using it. --MelanieN (talk) 16:56, 27 June 2018 (UTC) P.S. This is subtle, but: in the sentence where I say "Muslim majority", the wikilink is to his first version, for which that was an accurate description. Then it says that version was revised twice. --MelanieN (talk) 17:17, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

that seems biased to me and inaccurate it just seems like a way to push a biased POV against Trump עם ישראל חי (talk) 19:38, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN's version looks good to me. I would know if this addresses Neutrality's concerns.- MrX 🖋 17:12, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

We can still do shorter: Trump ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, citing security concerns; after several legal challenges, the Supreme Court upheld the policy's third revision. No need for a date in the lede. No need for the 5–4 split either; keep this for the article body. — JFG ^talk 17:46, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I would favor the following version: Trump ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries. In response to legal challenges, he revised the ban twice; in 2018, a divided Supreme Court rejected a challenge to the third version of the ban. Neutrality^talk 18:17, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

That's excellent, Neutrality. This legal issue is not settled. These particular challenges are settled, but there will be many more challenges -- wait a week or two for the next one. "The Muslim Ban" was not endorsed by the Court. In fact, the majority was rather sparse in its language. SPECIFICO talk 19:28, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Unless there's a compelling reason to deviate so sharply from what ALL the reporting says, which is "travel ban upheld", I see no reason how any one could support such a convoluted and inaccurate reimagining of the facts. That line reads like someone was looking over the shoulder of Maxine Waters and dictating from her diary. Jerry the Bellybutton Elf (talk) 00:39, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support JFG's proposal, although I would prefer to strike "several" preceding "legal challenges" to keep that clause shorter and more balanced. Also, Atsme's wordings above were also good and should probably be integrated into the body. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 02:28, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

What do you think of Neutrality's version:

Trump ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries. In response to legal challenges, he revised the ban twice; in 2018, a divided Supreme Court rejected a challenge to the third version of the ban.

 ? SPECIFICO talk 02:32, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I would support Neutrality's version. JFG's is acceptable. MelanieN's is good. "Upheld the ban" lacks nuance. Editors poo pooing proposals without offering alternatives are not helping.- MrX 🖋 02:42, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

• • Remove "divided," same problems as saying "along party lines." Also, can someone clarify why we are splitting hairs between "upheld the order" and "rejected a challenge thereunto"? From what I read in the relevant article, the Court ruled that he was within his legal powers described in the Immigration and Nationality Act and did not violate the Constitution, and remanded it to the lower courts for other issues. Rejected the constitutional challenge and upheld the constitutionality seem to me to be synonyms. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 02:55, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
• Nope. Every source says the "travel ban was upheld". This whole "rejected a challenge" business is somebody's own personal opinions and reimagining of the facts. Can't be doing that. JFG's version is fine, even though it should be said that the ban includes Muslim-majority and non-Muslim-majority countries. Jerry the Bellybutton Elf (talk) 13:25, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

• Jerry, I have no idea where you're getting your "reimagining" idea. While "upholds" is common, "rejects challenge" is just as common and more technically accurate. Some sources use both phrases in the same article:

• "High court OKs Trump’s travel ban, rejects Muslim bias claim, Associated Press
• US Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to Trump's Travel Ban, National Law Journal
• By a vote of 5-4, the justices rejected a challenge to President Donald Trump’s September 2017 order – often referred to as the 'travel ban'", SCOTUSblog

Ultimately, I don't think it matters much. But I think that there's no reason to go with the more technically accurate language when it is just as short and accessible to the reader. Neutrality^talk 13:49, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

@Neutrality: Again, can you explain why "rejected a challenge to its constitutionality" is more accurate than "upheld its constitutionality"? —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:19, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

@Compassionate727:, sure. The Hawaii v. Trump case was about a preliminary injunction against the travel ban. The Court's decision overturned the preliminary injunction; the Court found that "plaintiffs have not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their constitutional claim" and remanded the case back to the lower courts for further proceedings. So it was about "likelihood of success on the merits" rather than the merits themselves. In practical terms, everyone knows that a decision like this means it's very likely that the travel ban will ultimately be upheld. But the Court didn't rule definitively that the travel ban was constitutional. Hence, "rejected a challenge" is slightly more accurate. Neutrality^talk 14:25, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I see, thank you. I hadn't realized the case was about the injunction rather than the order itself. I further imagine I'm not the only one. Should we clarify that in the lead (i.e. say "struck down a preliminary injunction" rather than "rejected a challenge"), or is that body content? —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:55, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Either way is fine with me. "Struck down a preliminary injunction" would be more precise, but I'm OK with the more general "rejected a challenge" in the lead section. Neutrality^talk 15:37, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment "Along party lines" is NOT the same as the "along ideological lines" in my proposal. Justices are supposed to be apolitical, but that doesn't mean they don't hold conservative, progressive, or centrist views. "Along ideological lines" is the standard way of referring to this phenomenon. We even have an entire article on the subject. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:06, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Yeah, sorry, I chose my words carelessly. I was trying to communicate that I am opposed to mentioning the split in the Supreme Court for the same reasons doing so was opposed earlier. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:31, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
• I support User:Neutrality's version. --MelanieN (talk) 21:09, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I would oppose that: it is way too convoluted for the lede section; to a casual reader, it sounds like Wikipedia is trying to obfuscate the essence of the decision. — JFG ^talk 21:53, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

That's what I'm saying (Neutrality and Melanie). I agree that "rejected the challenge" and "ban was upheld" are basically the same thing. I just don't know why we're twisting the words and trying to cram so much information into one sentence. Personally I like the way the vast majority of sources are reporting it ("travel ban was upheld") because it lends itself to another issue of presidential authority, which was also upheld. If you put something like "travel ban was upheld, after legal challenges from Democratic attorneys general" then you can say both things without getting that complicated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerry the Bellybutton Elf (talk • contribs) 00:07, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposed versions

The discussion is becoming hard to follow, but we seem to have three proposed wordings that have emerged from various arguments. Let's summarize them and see which version can gather the most support.

Version A

Trump ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, citing security concerns. In response to legal challenges he revised the ban twice. The third version was upheld by the Supreme Court in June 2018 in a 5-4 ruling.

Version B

Trump ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, citing security concerns; after several legal challenges, the Supreme Court upheld the policy's third revision.

Version C

Trump ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries. In response to legal challenges, he revised the ban twice; in 2018, a divided Supreme Court rejected a challenge to the third version of the ban.

Version D

Trump ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries; after several legal challenges, the Supreme Court upheld the policy's third revision in a 5-4 ruling along ideological lines.

Version E

Early in his presidency, Trump ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries. Trump twice amended the order in the face of legal challenges to its religious bias, and the third version of the ban was implemented in June 2018 after the Supreme Court rejected a challenge to it.

Survey time! — JFG ^talk 22:00, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support B, oppose C, neutral on A. This is the lede section; keep it as short as possible. Details can go in the article body. C is too convoluted and slightly POVish by talking of a "divided" court and omitting the "security concerns". — JFG ^talk 22:05, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
• Version B . Accurate, readable, laudably brief. (We are talking about the lede here after all so we have to keep it to the minimum necessary to get the information across.) --MelanieN (talk) 22:07, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
• Version C. The most accurate (as explained above), readable, and informative. "Citing security concerns" is vague and not necessary; readers can go to the article on the case (Hawaii v. Trump)) if they want to know more. We also don't need the month, as in A. Oppose B as too general. Neutrality^talk 22:49, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Security concerns have been the only official reason for the travel ban ever since its first version, and this wording was upheld by consensus in numerous prior discussions (see #23). We would need to meet a high bar of WP:CCC to remove it, especially now that the Supreme Court has essentially confirmed the President's authority to impose immigration restrictions for security reasons. — JFG ^talk 23:13, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

That's your OR. SPECIFICO talk 23:21, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

JFG - I don't know what you mean by "only official reason"; the Court expressly did not rule that the "only reason" for the ban was "security" — rather, the court held that even if an immigration policy was partially based on religious hostility, it would still be sustained if it could "reasonably be understood to result from a justification independent of unconstitutional grounds." In other words, "even if we know that an immigration policy was motivated by blatant official animus against a religion, the policy should be sustained so long as the government proffers some rational national security basis for it." The complexities of this are precisely the reason why we should not be in the business of giving ultra-vague statements like "citing security concerns" in the lead section. Neutrality^talk 23:32, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate the legal details, thanks for pointing them out. Be mindful however that I didn't say the Court ruled that security was the only reason for the ban; I merely noted that the executive orders cited only security and vetting concerns as reasons to enact certain travel restrictions; that is a fact. The whole legal dispute revolved around candidate Trump's campaign rhetoric, and whether his provocative words should be taken into account and interpreted as "religious animus", rather than sticking to the four corners of the executive orders he signed after he became President. The Court went further than merely endorsing this particular travel ban because, as you point out, they recognized that the enacted travel restrictions could be upheld for security reasons even if other irrelevant reasons had been advanced. — JFG ^talk 00:04, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

• I like version B but I still think "Muslim-majority countries" kind of smells like left-wing talking points. There's nothing in the executive order about race or religion or any of that crap. The travel ban article can get into all the nitty gritty about conspiracy theories behind why the ban was put into place. Jerry the Bellybutton Elf (talk) 00:10, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Justified or not, "Muslim-majority countries" is the wording used by a vast majority of sources when discussing this policy. Wikipedia must follow source coverage, not correct the record, and this turn of phrase gained wide consensus among editors in prior discussions. Think about it: if immigration, terrorism and the Muslim scare had not been such prominent campaign issues, and if the EO had quietly been called "updating travel restrictions on certain high-risk countries", there would have been no controversy, no mass protests, no legal arguments, and no Wikipedians arguing how to describe this mess. — JFG ^talk 00:23, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

This again is OR. SPECIFICO talk 01:54, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

No, this is talk page discussion to rebut another editor's criticism of an established consensus wording. It would be OR if I suggested to include any of this speculative "what if" scenario in the article. I did no such thing. — JFG ^talk 02:09, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

@JFG: In preparing this "survey" you have completely ignored the version I proposed near the very beginning of this section. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:01, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

On purpose, I only kept the most recent proposals, because they took more discussion into account than the earlier ones. If you feel your earlier proposal brings some extra value compared to the later ones, feel free to add it as option D. — JFG ^talk 02:05, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

@JFG: I'm dismayed that you should think it is okay to just ignore proposals that came earlier. It makes a mockery of the "survey" process. None of the proposals in your "survey" mention they key point of how SCOTUS voted, which some editors agreed was important. Please do not create a survey with an incomplete list of choices again. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:36, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

@Scjessey: It was nothing personal, and I have apologized on your talk page. Now somebody anonymously added a version E, and if we end up with 10 versions to pick from, the survey will be useless. We would then switch to a longer discussion with individual questions such as "should we mention security concerns?", "should we mention religion concerns?", "should we say the ban was upheld or that its challenge was rejected?", "should we mention the Supreme Court vote tally?, "should we allude to ideological purposes?", "should we mention the date of the ruling?", and after all of those obtain consensus, some brave soul will produce a final wording that will be submitted to RfC. Phew. I wish life were a bit simpler some days. — JFG ^talk 02:54, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support B. Brevity is a virtue. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 05:03, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support B because it's to the point and brief. Would rather, however, see a semantics change to take the focus off of "Muslim countries", because the ban was not focusing on Muslim countries but on terrorism. As written, it subtly and subliminally says "Trump is an anti-Muslim racist!", which is not NPOV. My suggestion is to change it to "Cifing security concerns, Trump ordered a travel ban on citizens from countries around the world, several which have a Muslim-majority. After several legal challenges, the Supreme Court upheld the policy's third revision." -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:17, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

• Winkelvi, your view is not supported by the overwhelming consensus of mainstream reporting and analysis. The mainstream reports that Trump repeatedly and boldly called this a Muslim Ban, and indeed that was the basis for various legal arguments against the action. The mainstream also reports widely and unambiguously that the countries of origin related to US terrorist attacks such as 09/11 were omitted from Trump's order. So please consider these and reconsider your argument above. SPECIFICO talk 18:43, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support B - more brief and more clear. L293D (☎ • ✎) 22:39, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support C - It is virtually as brief as version B, while considerably more informative and more factual.- MrX 🖋 22:45, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support E or C B misstates the Court's decision. We really can't say that. SPECIFICO talk 23:33, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support version B: it's the concise and most importantly it covers all of the pertinent facts. It's destined for the lead so verbosity is not optimal. Good job as usual JFG. – Lionel^(talk) 02:44, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
• Version B as it is the most neutral one and fully satisfies UNDUE clause of NPOV.--MONGO (talk) 05:17, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
• Comment @Scjessey, Emir of Wikipedia, Rreagan007, Space4Time3Continuum2x, and AmYisroelChai: You participated in this discussion but have not !voted for any of the five versions above. There is wide opposition to the existing language, so let's assume some change will be made. In my humble opinion, one of the five versions should be good enough, and we're well past the point of diminishing returns. Bearing in mind that perfect is the enemy of good, do you care to !vote before this discussion closes? ―Mandruss ☎ 07:11, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - @Mandruss: The !voting process was broken because JFG effed up the survey by excluding some of the options from the discussion above. With that said, my !vote is below. -- Scjessey (talk) 10:35, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

This comment is needlessly inflammatory. Most participants added their !vote after your option D was listed, and none except you supported it. — JFG ^talk 12:35, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

No, it really isn't needless or inflammatory. If it prevents you from doing it again, it will have been totally worth it. The fact that it has attracted little support is, however, of great concern to me, since all other versions fail to include relevant information mentioned in every single source. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:39, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support D because "along ideological lines" is very important and mentioned in all the sources. -- Scjessey (talk) 10:32, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Salary

Trump takes home a One-dollar salary per annum. This should be included in the infobox. DrJenkins365 (talk) 22:06, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

No. --Malerooster (talk) 22:15, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

It's not worth noting. Also, he donates his salary to charity, which is different from not accepting a salary in the first place. I think the listing on that page may be in error. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:18, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Not worth noting. Other independently wealthy presidents have also donated their salaries to charity: Snopes. Also, there are very expensive, fully taxpayer-funded perks that Trump is accepting: Besides pay, the president gets free transportation in the presidential limousine, Marine One and Air Force One and, of course, free housing in the White House. Another perk: After leaving office, the ex-presidents remain on the government payroll, bringing in an annual pension of about $200,000, as well as health care coverage and paid official travel. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:16, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Free food! SPECIFICO talk 07:24, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

It's mostly cheeseburgers and affordable :) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:50, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Trump personally makes hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars per year by simply visiting his personal golf clubs and playing more golf than any president in US history, so it would be ridiculous to claim he only takes $1 in salary without this relevant context. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:10, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

He does NOT take a $1 a year salary. That is no longer allowed for government employees; he has to take the full salary that a president is supposed to get (currently $400,000[50]). He then donates it, or some portion of it, however he calculates it, to a government agency on a quarterly basis. --MelanieN (talk) 23:54, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

@DrJenkins365: See also the recent discussion at Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 85#Presidential salary. I had added a sentence in the "Wealth" section[51] but several editors thought it was undue, because some prior presidents also forfeited their salary. — JFG ^talk 00:11, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

'The Apprentice' franchise

@Galobtter: You added the sentence on the international version. I looked for a source on Burnett and Trump co-producing and found info on the BBC producers and one BBC News article on Trump producing which I added to the paragraph. Do you have any other references? The UK version seems to be the only successful and long-running international version. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:08, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for finding a source! No need to delve on other international versions here. I have condensed your new text a bit, as it was partly repeating the previous sentence. Hope you don't mind. Also, the section header does not benefit from specifying "The Apprentice franchise"; at the level of a Trump bio, "The Apprentice" is enough. Finally, are you sure it's worth linking to the UK version in the hatnote? I'd rather limit this to versions in which Trump himself participated, i.e. the original US version and the celebrity derivative. What do you think? — JFG ^talk 22:36, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Aren’t you in violation of AAR by reverting my edit? (I may be wrong - I usually am, so someone please enlighten me.) You deleted "franchise" from the section title, I challenged by reinserting and started a discussion on the Talk page. You reverted and then peremptorily - or should I say imperiously - added No need to delve on other international versions here to the Talk page. Wasn’t gonna delve but maybe dwell a little or at least mention in passing. Most of the international versions seem to have bombed or died quietly and unlamented but it looks like a franchise to me. I haven’t found any sources on whether Trump benefited financially or not from all of them (he did and still does in the UK, according to the BBC), but he figured prominently in their promotions ("adapted from US version starring multimillionaire"). The borders between between what this article is lumping under branding and licensing, side ventures, media career, and even real estate, are fluid and pretty arbitrary because he’s always been promoting himself. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:47, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

"or should I say imperiously" No, you should not. Please keep the civility restrictions for this page per WP:ARBAPDS in mind when communicating with other editors. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 17:53, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: Even if Trump was personally involved in some of the franchised versions, the header should remain brief, hence my preference for just The Apprentice. It is immeditely followed by a hatnote pointing to the main articles of individual versions, so that's clear enough for readers. If Trump was really co-producing the franchise, we could replace the UK link by the franchise link. — JFG ^talk 18:04, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Still waiting for response from Galobtter who hasn't edited in a couple of weeks. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:18, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Please see WP:COMPULSORY. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:33, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Iran

@JFG: You made about 20 changes to the article in a short time period. I corrected the one about 'The Apprentice' and may have reached my 1RR limit for 24 hours, so I’m not touching the others one for now. But let me just ask you about one of them. You struck The administration boasted that from Trump personally lobbied dozens of European officials against doing business with Iran during the May 2017 Brussels summit. OK, arguably toning down fluff, as you put it; but why put "dozens" in quotation marks? According to the source, Trump encouraged dozens of powerful foreign leaders. It doesn’t say that he only lobbied the Europeans at the G20 summit but it does say that he urged dozens of foreign leaders. You didn’t correct the error but you added "irony"? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:48, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Many of those edits had inaccurate edit summaries -- the same issue that's arisen repeatedly in the past -- that belied changes in tone and meaning under the guise of little tweakies. It's extraordinarily burdensome to undo this kind of damage, because some of them require manual reverts due to more than one edit that affected wording or placement. I undid one of them, but the rest should be self-undone and the proposed edits presented on talk to avoid the accumulation of dozens of little unresolved problems with the article and its sourcing. SPECIFICO talk 14:43, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

You know where to complain about "inaccurate edit summaries" and whatnot. This talk page is for constructive criticism about specific issues. — JFG ^talk 21:49, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: I did not mean to convey irony by adding quotes, just showing that the "dozens" wording mirrors the source. I understand how it can be interpreted as doubt, though, so I would agree to remove the quotation marks. Also, as the source says "dozens of foreign leaders", perhaps we should use that instead of "dozens of European officals". An official is not a leader. Re:1RR, you are allowed to undo several edits, as long as you proceed in one session, uninterrupted by intervening changes by others. The goal is to avoid edit-warring, not to curtail editing towards article improvement. — JFG ^talk 21:49, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Manhattan developments - Trump tower

MrX Re edit. Sheesh - getting attacked from all sides. The "quote mining" wasn’t cherry-picked so much as ironic in keeping with the tone of Geist’s NY Times article. Come on, "his finesse with the zoning code?" - not exactly complimentary. Geist’s entire article is about showyness and pretentiousness, with a big chunk devoted to the wheeling and dealing behind the building of Trump Tower. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:08, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry Space4Time3Continuum2x I did not intend fo my edit summary to be a criticism of anyone's editing. I just think that a few selected quotes from a 24 year-old newspaper article was not the best way to present the material. I won't object strongly if the material is restored. - MrX 🖋 13:27, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

My feelings weren't hurt; just wanted to set the record straight. For all I know, the first two quotes were cherry-picked, but I'm not a member of the fanclub. I would like to reinsert the reference to the current text, 'though, because it contains a lot of info on how Trump "obtained the rights", i.e., managed to get the area rezoned etc. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:50, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree the contemporary NYT article is a useful source. I also agree the contested text had too many direct quotes. Perhaps one of you can suggest an appropriate paraphrase of the source's most salient points instead? — JFG ^talk 16:00, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree that paraphrasing would be an improvement.- MrX 🖋 16:16, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

The current sentence still contains the most important fact (Trump obtaining the rights to build), and Geist's article, despite its levity and the other stuff it mentions, is a good source for that. I don't even remember why I added the third quote – maybe to counteract the other two, thinking there would be opposition to their removal. Less may be more, and readers interested in details have the source to refer to. My suggestion is to just add Geist as the reference. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:37, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Just citing the source is fine too, although Trump's play with zoning and air rights would deserve mention. Calling it "finesse" is over the top, though. In general for this article, the less opinion (favorable or not), the better. — JFG ^talk 20:17, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

That's fine with me.- MrX 🖋 21:43, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Air rights trading is completely normal in Manhattan. Since mid-century, the zoning in even the densest areas (and Trump Tower is on New York City's Main Street and one of its biggest cross streets, it's probably zoned pretty high whether anyone tried to get it increased or not) only allows a certain amount of acres of floor per acre of land (15 seems to be a common base number, it's a bit like the better tax deductions with extra floors for building public goods on your land like public plazas/indoor shortcuts, and new subway entrances). This is cause a 1916 building made people realize enough of these would turn the streets into dark canyons at noon and invented zoning laws and by mid-century they allowed people to sell "unused right to build" to their neighbors. The city doesn't mind if you buy and sell air rights, it's not very lawyery, everyone knows about it. It doesn't damage sunlight much if "lack of sheer building cliff" is moved to the next building and it allows the free market to redistribute building to where it's most useful. Note to readers: if you're from a place with wide streets or blocks (like much of America) note that the center of Manhattan blocks is only 100 feet from the sidewalk, that isn't far enough that lots of people would use only part of the lot without being forced and streets (including all required open space like sidewalks) are only 64 (most streets), 80 (big ones) or 100 (Broadway) feet wide. Cause the blocks are thinner than soccer fields, floors all the way from sidewalk to sidewalk are allowed. If you're wondering about the Twin Towers the land was 16 acres of blocks and streets that were razed into like a 300 yard wide sidewalk. Though they were 110 floors and too wide to even fit on NYC blocks all those acres of sidewalk must've had enough air rights. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:35, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Helsinki Summit

Can someone add info about the Summit in Helsinki on July 16th? Merimiesei (talk) 07:57, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done — JFG ^talk 11:04, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

This is the wrong article for news about an upcoming event in the presidency. Certainly it is not biographically significant as this time, particularly as it hasn't even happened. It should be in Presidency of Donald Trump, and it can be argued it is a bit premature even for that. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:27, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Meeting announcements are not worthy of inclusion in a bio. I'm not sure they should be included in the presidency article. What is important is the impact of such a meeting, if any.- MrX 🖋 12:06, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

This meeting has been expected ever since Trump was elected, it was even a campaign theme. A short sentence is warranted. — JFG ^talk 12:33, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

That fact is already covered in the article. The scheduled date and venue are trivial details. I'm not a fan of pulling the WP:RECENTISM card, but wring these articles like a daily log is a poor reflection of our considerable collective writing abilities. We can do better.- MrX 🖋 12:43, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough; let's see what other editors think. — JFG ^talk 13:26, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

New Quinnipiac University poll

The views ascribed to Trump by voters in the poll from a couple of weeks ago should be represented in the present tense. I hope the reason is obvious.- MrX 🖋 13:29, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, but biographies are supposed to be written from the historical perspective, which means we should use the past tense. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:36, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with past tense, but I disagree with your removing the 50% of respondents who cite non-racial motives for controlling the border. On process, I don't know who is challenging what by now, so I will refrain from touching this phrase, but I would appreciate a voluntary reinstatement. — JFG ^talk 13:51, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

It would be false balance, JFG. In a section on Trump's racial views, the fact that a significant number of respondents think Trump's border views are based on his racism is significant. The other sentence had nothing to do with his racial views whatsoever. Thus, it does not belong. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:54, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Anything that affirms perception of racism is fair game, but anything that counters it should be excluded per false balance? That's reasoning from the conclusion. — JFG ^talk 13:56, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

The deleted factoid wasn't a "counter" to the racism view. You are suggesting it was a binary choice, but you can believe Trump is motivated by racism AND a sincere interest in controlling our borders. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:02, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Wrong: the poll made it a binary choice. See question 41: What do you think is the main motive behind President Trump's immigration policies: a sincere interest in controlling our borders, or racist beliefs? Regrettably, they did not provide a "both" choice. — JFG ^talk 14:05, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I did not read the poll and I stand corrected. Nevertheless, my view remains the same. The fact that some respondents believe Trump's motivation is a sincere interest in controlling our borders has nothing whatsoever to do with his racial views, so it doesn't belong in the section on racial views. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:08, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Excessive sources in "Racial views" section

Per WP:OVERCITE I do not believe that we need more than one or two sources to support each statement in the article. The "Racial views" section had many instances including three or more sources, so I trimmed each group of citations to one or two.[52] MrX reverted,[53] stating a fear that some editors may later remove material as not being verified in sources. I was very careful to keep the highest-quality sources and to make sure they fully support the article statements, so that I consider this fear unfounded. If other editors remove article text later, that will be easy to challenge at that time. Therefore I am requesting to restore my version. — JFG ^talk 13:43, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Happy Monday!. That essay is terrible. This is very controversial content which has been repeatedly challenged on the basis of WP:UNDUE and other for specious reasons. For example, the sentence "Trump has a history of making racially controversial remarks and taking actions that are perceived as racially motivated." stated in Wikipedia's voice is very controversial. Citing four excellent sources shows that we did put some effort into determining if that view is widely-held and it gives readers easy access to resources for their further research. On the other hand, there is little to no upside to removing sources. Similarly, you removed http://www.factcheck.org/2016/09/trump-surrogates-spin-birther-narrative/, a very important source for one of the most contentious conspiracy theories promoted by Trump and his courtiers. Surprisingly, you even removed two excellent sources for the sentence "His remarks were condemned as racist worldwide, as well as by many members of Congress." which is another fact stated in Wikipedia's voice and requiring strong evidence. - MrX 🖋 14:04, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Consulate closure

@Scjessey:[54] By your reasoning, almost all of the "Foreign policy" section could be removed as being in the "wrong article". Is that what you are aiming at, or did you have a specific reason to oppose mentioning the closure of the Seattle consulate? This sort of thing does not happen every day, and it shores up the later sentence's assertion that Russia–U.S. relations are at a low point. — JFG ^talk 13:47, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

As described in this news article, the expulsion of Russian diplomats was essentially symbolic, since they can be replaced. The net effect is zero, so there's absolutely no way this can be biographically significant; therefore, I have removed it. I further submit this was added to the article to lessen the impact of the previous sentence, which exactly the kind of false balance we should be trying to avoid. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:48, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

The consulate remains closed, so where would any replacement diplomats go? "False balance" is a spurious claim that cuts both ways; I'd like this article to deal with facts more than opinions. — JFG ^talk 13:53, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

It's still not biographically significant. And frankly, I could read the hidden "but" at the beginning of the sentence you added, making it seem more like you were trying to use narrative to lessen the impact of the previous sentence. Honestly, you should really seek consensus before adding things to the article, because so many of your content additions are getting challenged. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:58, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

The hidden "but" is in you head only, my friend. I suppose that if I removed the alleged plans to revoke sanctions against Russia, you would insist that it is "biographically significant". Or can I go ahead and remove this non-event? — JFG ^talk 13:59, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

That's an entirely separate issue; however, I agree with you that is a non-event and I would support your removal of it. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:06, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, done. Let's see the next challengers! — JFG ^talk 14:08, 5 July 2018 (UTC)