This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Currently the lede opens with,

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current President of the United States, in office since January 20, 2017. Before entering politics, he was a businessman and television personality.

I would like to change the second sentence to something that I think is more precise and also better demonstrates how unusual his election is. My suggestion is this:

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current President of the United States, in office since January 20, 2017. Before running for President in 2016, he was a businessman and television personality.

I believe this more precisely conveys his entrance onto the political scene; he literally never held a government job--elected or appointed--before his election. Thoughts? Unschool 03:55, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

This is definitely more precise, in a manner of speaking. My question is, when did he actually enter politics? When he was claiming that Obama's U.S. citizenship is questionable, beginning in 2011, is this when he entered politics [1]? Did he back any candidates for office before officially running for president? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:13, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@Steve Quinn:, your question goes to the issue of what it means to "enter politics"? To my mind, it refers largely to campaigning to win elected office. I don't consider someone who is merely a behind the scenes player (like George Soros or the Koch brothers) to have actually "entered" politics. But maybe mine is not a typical view.

I'd support, with some tweaks. He entered politics in 2000 with reform party candidacy, so the current version isn't really accurate. I'd say even "Before being President, he was a .." Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:28, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@Mandruss: The 2000 "campaign" is an interesting thing. Was he actually running? At the time, I would have said no, that he was simply doing what he had done before--trying to build up his brand. There's no evidence that he did anything serious in 2000. But you know what? I (and some others) expected the same thing in 2016. Even after he came down the escalator, I assumed that he would pull out (citing some BS reason) before having to fill out the financial paperwork. So I don't know. I'm still inclined to say his initial "entrance" into politics was in 2015, but I'm solidly flexible on the matter. :-) Unschool 05:20, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Background: #Current consensus item 17. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:13, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Current lead is not bad because before entering politics he was still a businessman and television personality. I support updating lead per Unschool for being more specific. Lorstaking (talk) 07:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Oppose changing the lead. Trump was still a businessman while running for president. GoodDay (talk) 15:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@GoodDay:. Obviously your observation is correct, but I disagree with your conclusion. This is actually a common formulation. For example, at Bill Clinton, it says,

Prior to the presidency, he was the Governor of Arkansas

even though he was still governor of Arkansas. I don't think this is a major problem, but maybe I'm missing something. Unschool 05:20, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I tend to agree with this assessment, as he did not formally turn over control of his business interests until after he was elected. I'd probably support saying "Before being elected President in 2016...". Rreagan007 (talk) 18:34, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I would support the proposed change. Trump's candidacy announced in June 2015 was a watershed moment in his life. From that point until the inauguration, he spent most of his time campaigning and transitioning; his business interests were sent to the back burner and handled by his children. Trump did make a couple public appearances to promote the opening of his Washington hotel and a golf course in Scotland, but even there most of the comments were political in nature and related to his campaign (putting to rest the Obama birther claims, and commenting on the Brexit vote, respectively). With regard to his "TV personality" career, he explicitly gave that up in order to run for president, although one could argue that as a candidate and as President, he has been more of a TV personality than ever… His drama skills served him well in both roles. — JFG ^talk 23:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Wording should be tweaked to Before running for president in 2015, he was a businessman and television personality. or Before announcing his candidacy in June 2015, he was a businessman and television personality. or Before entering the 2016 presidential race, he was a businessman and television personality. (changes to OP's proposal in bold) — JFG ^talk 23:16, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Since this appears to be gaining a little traction, I'll say that I oppose capitalization of any standalone occurrence of "president", per MOS:JOBTITLES. That's "Before running for president...". ―Mandruss ☎ 23:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree – edited my proposed alternate wording accordingly. — JFG ^talk 23:32, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. And both Steve Quinn and GoodDay have this right in their comments above. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, this makes sense in terms of "before entering politics" - but what about the verb "was"? He is still a businessman, in that he owns and profits from (but does not currently operate) The Trump Organization. Maybe we could say "was primarily a businessman and television personality"? --MelanieN (talk) 00:40, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

That's nitpicking. He is no longer a businessman even though he still owns large parts of The Trump Organization, in the same way that Bill Gates is no longer a businessman although he still holds a gazillion shares of Microsoft. Trump will perhaps revert to business after his presidency, but that's a topic we can park until 2021 (unless Mueller time prophecies come to pass). — JFG ^talk 00:46, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Before entering the 2016 presidential race, he was a businessman and television personality. is good; support that. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:48, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I think I'm seeing a lot of general support for the gist of my proposal, but I know we need to tread carefully in the lede of this particular article. Shall we compare a few versions of this idea, with a variety of tweaks, or is it acceptable to be bold and make a change? And if we do, do we change #17? (thanks @Mandruss: for pointing this out; I had not been aware of this). Unschool 04:48, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Initial discussion appears to converge quickly, so getting consensus shouldn't rise to RfC level. I'll open a week-long survey to check if the wording getting most support can actually be accepted by a majority of editors. — JFG ^talk 12:03, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Survey: Amending lede paragraph

From the discussion above, there appears to be some emerging traction for amending the lead sentence (consensus item #17) as follows (changed part highlighted in italics, instead of "Before entering politics"):

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current President of the United States, in office since January 20, 2017. Before entering the 2016 presidential race, he was a businessman and television personality.

Please indicate your support or opposition to this amendment. — JFG ^talk 12:03, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support, per my rationale above. — JFG ^talk 12:03, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - A more accurate wording would be "Before assuming office, he was a businessman and television personality". GoodDay (talk) 12:06, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Removal of the second sentence entirely, would suffice. GoodDay (talk) 14:22, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support, per comments and replies above. Unschool 12:49, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
• The word "before" implies he is no longer these things, which is arguably untrue in the latter case and unquestionably untrue in the former. He is no less a businessman now then he was in 2014. GCG (talk) 13:38, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support Certainly can argue that he is still a businessman or that he was a businessman till he entered office (the latter may be the case), but the wording is still an improvement - @GreatCaesarsGhost and GoodDay:, do you think the proposed wording is better than the current wording? Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:52, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I prefer the current wording. But, if you're going to change it, adopt the version I mentioned. GoodDay (talk) 13:53, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I prefer the Silvio Berlusconi model (...is an American businessman and politician currently serving as...) but as that is a tall order, removing the second sentence is a good choice. Merkel is not a research scientist, Macron is not an investment banker. Even the most whitewashed description of Trump's control of his company would not suggest that he is no longer a businessman. GCG (talk) 17:13, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - I concur with GCG's comment. I am now of the opinion that either the lede paragraph needs to be rewritten to acknowledge he is still a businessman and a TV personality, or the second sentence can be removed entirely because it is already handled properly in the body of the article and the infobox. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:06, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - While I personally think that the mention that he is still a businessman is unnecessary, it is nonetheless undeniably true. Rather than remove the second sentence, @GreatCaesarsGhost:'s notion of following the Berlusconi model strikes me as nearly perfect. Unschool 02:09, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@Unschool: How can you assert as "undeniably true" that Trump is still a businessman? Is it because he is trying to run the country like a business? Regarding his real estate business and other dealings, he is only just a part owner of The Trump Organization, just like Bill Gates is a part owner of Microsoft. There is no longer any business involvement in either case. — JFG ^talk 16:14, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

@JFG: Of course Trump is still a businessman. He is still the owner of a vast business empire that still operates, and he still makes money from. He continues to entertain guests (often at the taxpayers' expense) who then patronize his properties, and he continues to use his properties (again, at taxpayers' expense) to host official White House events. No other president in US history has done more than Trump to enhance his own wealth, brand, and businesses. And despite presidential custom, he refused to divest himself from businesses that could cause massive conflicts of interest. There's even a case gradually winding its way through the courts concerning emoluments. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:28, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, we just disagree on the definition of "businessman". No big deal. — JFG ^talk 20:20, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

And: by most third-party accounts, Trump's wealth has actually decreased as a result of the backlash against his campaign, election, and presidency. — JFG ^talk 20:21, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per GoodDay's argument. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:51, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per GoodDay. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:57, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Trump made his first speaking appearance at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in February 2011. His appearance at CPAC was organized by GOProud, an LGBT conservative organization, in conjunction with GOProud supporter Roger Stone, who was close with Trump. GOProud pushed for a write-in campaign for Trump at CPAC's presidential straw poll. The 2011 CPAC speech Trump gave is credited for helping kick-start his political career within the Republican Party.[328][329] Though not yet promoting the "birther" conspiracy theory, his conspiratorial suspicion about Obama's background was well received, when he falsely claimed that "The people who went to school with him never saw him, they don’t know who he is. Crazy."

Since there is a paragraph about this speech, I can't think of a good reason to remove the last sentence, which happens to be the only part about what Trump actually said in the speech. It would be highly interesting for any politician to tell a massive untruth like that at their first major political speech, and it's especially significant in view of Trump's subsequent high-profile promotion of birtherism in the following years, as well as his current widely known and recognized reputation for alternative facts. The edit summary says "a journalist's opinion of the GOP reaction at CPAC 2011 is anecdotal at best", but that is a red herring, because it is not about a journalist's opinion. I suppose you could remove "well-received" but I don't think that would be an improvement, as it helps the reader understand his promotion of birtherism for the subsequent years. The edit summary also says "Trump's birtherism is already covered at length above", which seems to me to be a reason why this quote is important to include, not exclude. zzz (talk) 15:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Funny, I was about to write this when zzz added their last sentence above... My edit summary also says that Trump's birtherism is covered in depth a couple paragraphs above, so this add-on is not very informative to our readers. — JFG ^talk 16:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

It informs our readers when he began promoting conspiracy theories about Obama. The fact that the birtherism is covered in this article is a good reason to include this. As well as the other reasons I mentioned above. zzz (talk) 16:11, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree that “well received” is a problem; the audience reaction is only hinted at in the source ("How Republicans Normalized Donald Trump's Racism". Mother Jones. January 12, 2018. Retrieved January 21, 2018), and that article’s tone is hardly neutral. Also, the sentence as written suggests he said this long before becoming a birther, when in fact it was only a month. How about something like this: A month before becoming a promoter of the Obama “birther” theory, he foreshadowed his doubts Obama’s background when he falsely claimed in his speech that "The people who went to school with him never saw him, they don’t know who he is. Crazy." Thoughts? --MelanieN (talk) 16:21, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

That looks fine to me. It is more informative. Definitely an improvement. zzz (talk) 16:29, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

@JFG: What do you think? --MelanieN (talk) 16:45, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Still an undue anecdote imho. We have a 229-word paragraph detailing Trump's involvement in birtherism from 2011 to 2016, that's plenty enough. (And I fondly remember the lengthy discussion that led to consensus on this very-well-sourced paragraph…) — JFG ^talk 17:02, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

There is an entire paragraph about the speech, which "kick-start[ed] his political career", but doesn't mention anything he said in the speech. Donald Trump began a speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference on Feb. 10, 2011, by announcing that he is "thinking about" running for president. Too often, Trump said, successful people don't run for president because they don't want to be "scrutinized or abused." As a result, he said, we get presidents like Barack Obama. "Our current president came out of nowhere. Came out of nowhere," Trump said. "In fact, I'll go a step further: the people that went to school with him, they never saw him, they don't know who he is. It's crazy." The line drew big applause from the conservative audience. zzz (talk) 17:37, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

The CNN source currently cited: in an early sign of things to come, he toyed with a conspiracy theory. "Our current president came out of nowhere.," Trump said. "In fact, I'll take it even further: The people who went to school with him, they never saw him. They don't know who he is. It's crazy. zzz (talk) 17:52, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Those are certainly better sources than the Mother Jones article. And they demonstrate that his "nobody saw him" comment was widely reported both at the time and since. Why do we give two sentences to GOProud, but none to the most reported aspect of his CPAC speech? I would still suggest using the sentence I proposed above, but with the CNN source instead of Mother Jones. --MelanieN (talk) 18:03, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree, I only just read the CNN source. All the stuff about GOProud is pretty much irrelevant as far as I can see. zzz (talk) 18:11, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Can trim/remove GOPproud stuff unless it is more reported, plus yup add about that. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:37, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

If we're going to mention what Trump said at CPAC 2011, it would fit more naturally within the existing paragraph on his "feelers" for the 2012 campaign. Here's what I would suggest:

• Move the CPAC stuff to the paragraph starting with "Trump publicly speculated about seeking the 2012 Republican presidential nomination"
• Combine this with the following paragraph "In the 2012 Republican primaries, Trump generally had polled…", which ends with his non-candidacy in the 2012 race.
• Move the whole "birtherism" paragraph to the "Racial views" section, where it belongs.
• Add the CPAC statement "classmates don't know who he is" (about Obama) to that birtherism paragraph, next to his questioning Obama's student records.

Thoughts on this plan? — JFG ^talk 20:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

That sounds like a good reorganization and makes sense to me, except that I would hate to see all references to birtherism removed from the political area and banished to the racial views section. It was an important part of his candidacy and I would think that it (along with its forerunner "nobody knows him") belongs in the campaign section. On the other hand, which campaign section? We have two separate campaign sections and birtherism etc. figured in both of them. I'd like to see more discussion on that aspect of the proposal. --MelanieN (talk) 21:45, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I have given it a go, with a series of edits.[2] Feel free to improve from there. — JFG ^talk 22:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I was hoping to see more discussion here before anything was done. You only proposed this a few hours ago, nobody but me has weighed in, and my input was a call for more opinions. --MelanieN (talk) 00:13, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

It is mainly referred to in sources about the speech, where it drew massive applause, so that is where it should be in the text. I suppose it could also have a brief mention in the racial views section, since it did appear in one source about his racial views. zzz (talk) 03:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I am extremely displeased that JFG has performed all these edits to the article with minimal discussion or support from other editors. Particularly egregious is the blanking of content with a bullshit edit summary referring to discussion on a completely different article! I would like to see JFG revert all these edits and return to the "regular order" of seeking a consensus before doing something so drastic. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:51, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@Scjessey: Feel free to restore whatever you wish to. Improving the article is sometimes faster by doing bold things than conducting lengthy discussions beforehand. But you know I am not the one to refrain from discussion and consensus-building, quite the contrary. — JFG ^talk 12:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, if MelanieN agrees, I think you should revert all your changes and take a more deliberate approach. With this article, exhaustive and expansive discussion before even the tiniest change has become the necessary norm. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:54, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Woops. I just added a comma without prior consensus. Sorry! ―Mandruss ☎ 13:11, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, making these changes took me some effort, I took into account suggestions from various editors, including some I originally disagreed with, and I believe the article has been improved as a result. If you have further improvements to make, I'd be pleased to see them. — JFG ^talk 15:25, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, JFG, "sometimes" it is faster to improve an article by doing bold things. Those "times" do not include when the article is controversial or under DS, or when there is active discussion going at the talk page. So the bottom line is I agree with Scjessey. IMO it is inappropriate to implement a major change like this two hours after proposing it, and after receiving no feedback except a call for more discussion. There's no hurry. Let's take it deliberately and work out what consensus is, OK? and THEN implement it. Two people (counting me now) have asked you to self-revert. Do I understand that you are refusing? --MelanieN (talk) 15:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@JFG: Don't worry, self reverting won't take nearly as much effort. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:28, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

About this edit, Ekem I don't think a list of medications is really necessary; already mentioned statins lowering cholestrol before and the rest doesn't seem all that important.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree. I'm not even sure that we need to include anything about his annual physical. It seems very mundane.- MrX 🖋 12:43, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Same here, actually removed all the health stuff a while back except for the alcohol and marijuana part; was reverted. Still, needs just a one-two sentence summary atmost IMO - I wrote "In 2016, Trump's personal physician, Harold Bornstein, issued a medical report that showed Trump's blood pressure and liver and thyroid function to be in normal ranges.[60][61] It also showed that he is overweight and takes statins to lower his cholesterol.[61]" some time ago which was enough; the content of these two reports which differ slightly can be summarized in that much text. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:21, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I figured everyone would be on board. With all the talk on this page about his mental health we finally have a doctor that examined it and reported on it. Given the previous and on going coverage of his health a small section is just fine. PackMecEng (talk) 13:35, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps just that part from the physical, but it needs trimming. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

The mental health screening is probably the only meaningful information. We might want to note why its meaningful.[3][4]- MrX 🖋 13:41, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

That would go against all previous discussions about his mental health. PackMecEng (talk) 14:01, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

These sources were available after that discussion and a briefing to members of Congress seems pretty significant in my view. In any case, I don't think we should discuss his mental health screening without giving some context.- MrX 🖋 14:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Haven't been paying too much attention to those discussion, but what about something like "Jackson said that Trump achieved a perfect score on the cognitive test; this was in the midst of media speculation on his mental health"? assuming can find sources to connect the two to not be SYNTH Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:21, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

That sounds decent, I could probably go for that. PackMecEng (talk) 14:23, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

That might work, But wasn't it screening, not a test?- MrX 🖋 14:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Dunno, copied that first part from this article :) Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:26, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Not sure, I don't see any sources at first blush saying screening. PackMecEng (talk) 14:29, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

CNN made a point of distinguishing between test and screening for some reason, but I see that WaPo calls it test so that works for me.- MrX 🖋 14:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I mean we can just specify the actual test, the Montreal_Cognitive_Assessment Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah kind of muddy on screening or test after looking at our article on it. PackMecEng (talk) 14:42, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I think a very short item could be used, but I’m not sure where in the article. Maybe under “presidency”. (Never mind, I see we have a "health" section under "personal".) Something like “During his annual physical in January 2018, Trump requested the White House physician to give him a cognitive screening test, which he passed with a perfect score of 30 out of 30.” If we’re going to mention this at all, I think it’s important to mention that it was at Trump’s request. And I wouldn’t use it as a back-door way of bringing in the media speculation about his mental health. --MelanieN (talk) 14:34, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Considering that apparently Trump specifically asked for and did the test to want to put that speculation to bed, I don't see it as a big leap and as long as we don't mention the actual speculation I don't see large issues in it. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:40, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree to mention both the test and the context; no prior president ever asked for an assessment of their mental health, but no prior president was so furiously accused of being a lunatic. — JFG ^talk 14:49, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with any mention of this so-called cognitive function test. Unless we have third party description as to the nature of the test and what it is designed to diagnose and its reliability, I see this as misleading and unencyclopedic. It could have been the test they give Air Force pilots to see whether they can hear the radio after sleep deprivation for all we know. We don't know that this was a test for early-stage dementia and ADD. But those are the concerns POTUS's inspires in the press and inner circle. SPECIFICO talk 16:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

@JFG: That's a deflection and a misrepresentation of widespread RS discussion of concerns about POTUS mental condition accross the political spectrum. "Lunatic" is very cute but I don't see any RS stating he bays at the moon. There's a specific concern as to his attention span, which observers claim has deteriorated, there's concern about his ability to absorb new information, there's concern about his memory, there's concern that he's losing touch with his personal relationships. These are all widely repoprted in RS. As to your assertion that no other president elicited such concerns, that is false. Reagan is now widely acknowledged to have been in dementia for at least the last 4 of his 8 years in office. Nixon was a raving drunk toward the end as his presidency unraveled. In both cases, this was concealed for years after the fact. SPECIFICO talk 16:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Your usual attention to detail seems to be on pause today. Re:"lunatic" I added a smiley; I did not state that RS were making such an outrageous claim... although you would surely admit that coverage of this president often reads "Trump is dangerously out of his mind; won't somebody take away his nuclear button?" Re:concerns about Trump's cognition, they have been totally refuted by Dr. Jackson in 56 minutes of press conference, in which he explained that in his daily interactions with him, he perceived Trump as "very sharp", and that he would not have recommended conducting any kind of cognitive assessment, were it not for the president's request. Re:Reagan and others, I'm well aware of those cases, but you did not read my comments accurately: I did not "assert that no other president elicited such concerns", I wrote that "no prior president ever asked for an assessment of their mental health". But thanks for the straws. — JFG ^talk 16:38, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

It was wikilinked by PackMecEng to Montreal_Cognitive_Assessment. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks I will have a looksee. Do we have 3rd party comment as to the suitability and reliability of that metric? SPECIFICO talk 16:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah just search; IIRC some were saying it does not measure early-stage dementia however the physician said that he was monitoring trump daily and didn't find any signs of that. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:23, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

There are starting to be 3rd party reports that will help us put this in proper context and perspective. I do think it's good news that POTUS perfect score shows he knows the difference between rhino and an elephant, but boasting about the perfect score on the dementia thing could be a sign of cognitive impairment. SPECIFICO talk 16:27, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

It's not appropriate for us to do our own Original Research about the validity or applicability of this particular mental status examination, or to try to find some third party commentary dismissing the test or result. Our job is to report why the doctor did a cognitive evaluation, what examination was used (that's a good idea), and what the result was. Period. --MelanieN (talk) 16:32, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: You removed the one part of the whole health section that almost everyone agree has weight here. What part of it does not make sense to you? PackMecEng (talk) 16:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Right: the mental health test is the topic that attracted most attention from RS. Must restore, Spec, please self-revert. — JFG ^talk 16:43, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

The MoCA is an extremely low bar to pass. I don't think it is particularly important, and I certainly don't think we need to flatter Trump with the use of the word "perfect" in the text. If we must have it, "passed" is sufficient. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

This is an absolutely meaningless statement -- He scored 30/30 on some "test". MelanieN this has nothing to do with Original Research and who said anything about "dismissing the test result"? We need to hear from acknowledged authorities about the significance of this Montreal test. I am sure that within a week there will be loads of thoughtful information and comments that will enable us to present a properly contextualized and NPOV mention if indeed it then appears to be DUE WEIGHT. Just because it's quantified and you know that 30/30 = 1.00 do you think there's any information in the statistic? SPECIFICO talk 16:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Look. We have had a consensus here not to use “armchair psychiatry” type comments about Trump’s mental health. We have insisted that such comments could only come from someone who has actually examined him. Well, now we have a report from someone who has actually examined him. That report has been widely reported by Reliable Sources. That report, and only that, is what we should put in the article. Even if some of us personally dislike it or disagree with it. Even if some individual third parties quibble about the type or meaning of the test. We have guidelines to follow here, and we should follow them. Not go shopping around looking for “acknowledged authorities” to criticize the test. Not unless criticism of the test becomes an issue as widely reported as the test results themselves. If that happens, then “within a week” as you say we can revisit the topic. In the meantime, please note that our own WP article says the assessment, which you sneeringly dismiss as "some "test" " and "an absolutely meaningless statement", is widely used and has been validated as a test of mild cognitive impairment. --MelanieN (talk) 17:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN, it's not helping to suggest this has to do with editors' opinions. I'm a scientist. You'll find me repeatedly saying more or less the same thing on diverse subjects relating to complex technical measurements. None of us who are not MDs and Psychologists knows what the significance of this statistic may be. Neither do mainstream journalists or their readers. That's why, in cases like this, we see journalists seeking out the most qualified among acknowledged mainstream experts to explain and contextualize the statistic. Shopping for "acknowledged authorities" is the core of WP editing. I don't understand why that would concern you, let alone get you so upset? SPECIFICO talk 17:36, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Let me just say that "he scored 30/30 on some (scarequotes) "test" " does not sound much like a scientific reaction. And "boasting about the perfect score on the dementia thing could be a sign of cognitive impairment" sounds like your opinion, not a research-based conclusion or Reliable Source quote. BTW note that the doctor based his conclusion not just on the test, but also on daily observation of the patient - which according to the Vox source you linked is a more reliable indicator of cognitive impairment than any test. --MelanieN (talk) 17:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

And BTW, I have no POV about POTUS or his cognitive condition. And you don't see me jumping on the bandwagon here to label him a sex molester or to label him a racist, or any of the other things you might expect to see if I were motivated by animus toward POTUS. SPECIFICO talk 17:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

So what is your proposal for the addition of this information? PackMecEng (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

You mean the mental test POTUS requested? I don't see that's significant. The coverage of it sets it in the context of the Michael Wolff book furor, but that too is fraught with content and sourcing problems. RS tell us Trump requested the test, which the MD would not otherwise have administered, in order to have some boasting rights. Remember nothing is disclosed w/o a President's consent. Maybe he took a Myers-Briggs profile and came out with some weird result we'll never see. Who knows? At any rate as editors we need to be careful not to give undue weight to recent "news" that originates from self-interest. I haven't looked far and wide yet, but from what I see in the Washington Post, the test does not really relate to the concerns that folks are voicing and that it would be highly significant if they were refuted. Do you think this test is a noteworthy fact or event in the life of Trump? I don't see any source describing it as such. [5] [6] Seems to me more like fast-fading recentism like last week's tweets or the perfect piece of chocolate cake he had while bombing Afghanistan. Remember that? Is it in the article? Seems about the same to me. SPECIFICO talk 03:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Given the vast amounts of previous discussion on this topic in the talk page history and the constant discussion for months from RS about his mental health and that we have a dedicated health section with this easily applying I must disagree with your assessment. Heck we even have a current condenses at the top of the page dealing with how we would go about including this very type of material. That coupled with several editors above asking that it be reinstated I would like to ask that you restore the material. PackMecEng (talk) 03:57, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks -- that helps me understand your view a bit better, I think. I do not think that this test, requested by POTUS, has anything to do with the general concern over what critics call a personality disorder, memory problems, ignorance -- all the things that the originator of this screening test says his metric does not address. It's not as if this exercise settles anything with respect to the issue, so whatever discussion of his emotional or mental quirks previously occurred here, I do not believe any RS is stating that all the fears and doubts have been resolved or even addressed by this test. I found the piece by Dana Milbank interesting. Should we put in the article that he's got the great Trump genes and he would live to be 200 if only...? Actually I think the yearly updates on his health are more suitable for the Presidency of DT article, because presidents do get these annual checkups. I don't think most ordinary bios go into annual detail about the subjects' livers. SPECIFICO talk 04:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarifications. The health section is and should remain brief, we agree on that. Given the weight of RS coverage, a short mention of the cognition test is warranted, per WP:DUE. Adding back a sentence without the "perfect score" note, per Scjessey. — JFG ^talk 07:06, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I just notice that this edit also inserted a new sentence giving a personal opinion of Jackson that POTUS is "sharp" -- this is not a professional or medical opinion, it goes beyond any consensus here. It insinuates POV into the article. I'm very disappointed that this was tacked on without disclosure here. Busy folks like me take comments at face value and I very well might never have checked the article text to see this gratuitous addition. I also note that the cited source for this add-on POV was the live coverage of the extended press conference referenced by Dana Milbank here [7]. Live streamed play by play is about as far as WP editors could get from WP:DUE edit the summary claimed. I have reverted it. SPECIFICO talk 21:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

The New York Times, science reporter Gina Kolata, yesterday: Trump Passed a Cognitive Exam. What Does That Really Mean? Good description of the MoCA. I doubt it changes anything for us, but it's informative FTR. It does say that 26–30 is considered "normal". ―Mandruss ☎ 23:37, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Girther movement

An article entitled Girther movement has been created and being considered for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Girther movement. Is it perhaps time for a spin-off of the health section? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:39, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

We have just a few lines about Trump's health here; not enough material to spin off. And Girther movement, while a cute novelty name, doesn't seem encyclopedic at all. — JFG ^talk 16:42, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think there is much to write about Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:15, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

God no. Somebody invents a cute pun and it immediately gets an article? This shouldn't even ben in this article, much less have an article of its own. This is the kind of thing that gives Wikipedia a bad name. --MelanieN (talk) 17:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I say no as well, but really User:MelanieN pathetic puns are not what give Wikipedia a bad name. What truly makes Wikipedia look bad is that we have all these wonderful policies about neutrality and preserving reliably-sourced information but hardly the slightest enforcement mechanism when a majority of editors at an article want to elevate partisanship above those policies. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

What gives Wikipedia a bad name is the appearance that any time anyone criticizes Trump or he says something controversial, somebody immediately (within hours) writes a new article about it. At most - at MOST - such things should be added to an existing article, and only split off into a standalone article if they gain enough weight for it. --MelanieN (talk) 18:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Maybe both give Wikipedia a bad name. While way meta, I definitely agree with Any that there is no mechanism for policy enforcement and the current system presumes incorrectly that a majority of editors who can type policy TLAs can't be wrong. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

We have been debating Trump's racism for years. (SeeTalk:Donald Trump/Archive 2#Use of the word "racism"). This latest news flurry was just the tipping point in a 45 year history. What really harms Wikipedia is the blatant obstruction of material by partisans on all sides, when that material doesn't agree with personally held views. It's particularly bad when it's compounded with misrepresenting sources, misrepresenting policies, gaming the system, sock puppetry, meat puppetry, fake retirements, and outright lying.- MrX 🖋 18:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

How do "fake retirements" have the slightest thing to do with this? I've retired a few times, and later come back. AFAIK, that doesn't have the slightest effect on article content. Just because you haven't retired doesn't mean not retiring is some immense virtue, does it? As far as this article is concerned, we have included race-related incidents in chronological order. Many BLPs at Wikipedia (like many biographical books) are written with chronology in mind, and it's no sin to favor a chronological BLP structure over a topic-based structure. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Fake retirements tend to be manipulative.- MrX 🖋 19:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

That’s about threatening to leave. It’s not about simply leaving without previous threats, and then later returning to the chagrin of User:MrX. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Back to your original suggestion, Emir: The time may come for creating an article called "Health of Donald Trump". But that will only be if his health becomes a major issue to his biography or his presidency. We aren't even close to that point yet. --MelanieN (talk) 20:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

P.S. I looked to see if there are other “health of” articles about currently living people. I found none. The closest thing was Health of Ronald Reagan which is a redirect to his main article. --MelanieN (talk) 20:15, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Challenges to "excellent health"

The New York Times, yesterday: Trump's Physical Revealed Serious Heart Concerns, Outside Experts Say

Dr. David Maron, director of preventive cardiology at Stanford University’s medical school: "Asked if Mr. Trump is in perfect health, Dr. Maron offered a blunt reply: 'God, no.'"

Dr. Eric Topol, a cardiologist at the Scripps Research Institute: "I would never use the words 'excellent health.' How you could take these indices and say excellent health? That is completely contradicted."

And some unspecified number of unnamed physicians with similar sentiments.

These are not "armchair diagnoses"; these doctors have access to the same test results as do Jackson and the rest of the world, and they are speaking only to those results, so Jackson's opinion is no more authoritative. It might even be said that two specialists in cardiology are more authoritative than one generalist in these matters.

I also don't think we can completely ignore the reality that, given Trump's history,[8] Jackson no doubt understood that his continued employment at the White House might depend on his sugar-coating his evaluation. Per Physician to the President#Selection of the physician, "The White House Physician is often selected personally by the President...".

It seems to me that, if we include Jackson's determination of "excellent health", policy requires one short sentence about the direct contradictions to that determination. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Support mention of this, but without the WP:OR about the sugar-coating. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

There is no proposal to say anything about the sugar-coating in the article. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm repeating the links I offered in the cognition test section above: [9] [10] Because its my nature to err on the side of moderation and caution, I did not add my personal take on this, which Mandruss in part confirmed: The doctor's duty is to care for his patient, and we can be confident that he did that. Like other government employees who come in contact with POTUS, RS have speculated that the doctor may have concluded that flattery and sycophantic bluster is part of how to ensure a working relationship with POTUS. Several broadcast and print commentators have noted that the doctor appeared to be misrepresenting POTUS health condition, sometimes in words similar to the famous Dr. Bornstein of NYC. These doctors are no doubt dedicated to their duties, but a little exaggeration or fib in public discourse doesn't compromise POTUS medical care and may even support it by cementing their relationship with their patient.

In terms of our repsonsibility as editors however, we nearly fell into the trap of immediately parroting White House talking point recentism and putting it in the article. Where RS explain how to separate the facts from the promotional presentation and talking points, we should reflect the facts, not the talking points. We went to a lot of trouble to get to that point with statements from Spicer, Conway, Hubakee-Sanders et al, and RS are now explaining that even this military MD needs the same scrutiny. SPECIFICO talk 16:57, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@Mandruss: For the record, Jackson served under several prior presidents, and was personally appointed as head physician by Barack Obama. I don't think it's fair to insinuate partisanship on his part. — JFG ^talk 21:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@JFG: - I'm not insinuating (is that your best choice of word?) partisanship. I'm saying that he may very well give a higher priority to holding onto his prestigious position than to complete candor with the press and public. This is not covered by his Hippocratic Oath. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:00, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

We should not censor content that is reported in the reliable sources because someone may have not completed candor with the press and the public. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Who is proposing censoring what content? ―Mandruss ☎ 22:05, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@Mandruss: You are not insinuating, but some commenters cited by RS are, and I'm not sure an encyclopedia should give any weight to their opinions (WP:FALSEBALANCE comes to mind). — JFG ^talk 04:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Links to articles insinuating "partisanshp"? Otherwise this is nonsense deflection. SPECIFICO talk 04:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@JFG: What on earth do those commenters have to do with this question? Drs. Maron and Topol are not insinuating partisanship, they are offering very educated medical opinions that these test results do not indicate "excellent health". That's all they are saying as far as I know, and their views and those of the others who agree with them are all I propose to represent in the one short sentence. Surely you're not claiming that FALSEBALANCE applies to these statements; their views are neither minority nor extraordinary.
"All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Have we really become so disconnected from policy that we will dismiss these prominent doctors because half the world hates Donald Trump? ―Mandruss ☎ 17:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

We must dismiss any and all doctors who have not examined the patient. I'd say the same thing if the White House doctor said Trump has cancer while notable cancer experts who reviewed his X-Rays independently would assess his prospects as excellent. — JFG ^talk 18:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Very cute. However you're not responding to the central points, a) that we are not discussing a diagnosis, and b) that we are discussing the press talking points, not the medical duties, functions, or responsibilities of an examining physician. SPECIFICO talk 19:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

After 2 years of editing articles about Trump and his campaign, haven't we learned to follow RS presentations? As Dana Milbank and others have detailed with great insight, those around Trump and his organization appear to sustain their relationships with him by indulging his ego where it does not directly compromise their work or legal responsibilities. We've repeatedly read about this -- Gen'l Kelly, Gary Cohn, many US Senators, et al. Mandruss has stated this very clearly. Nobody would accuse the MD of having violated his Hippocratic Oath (which POTUS sucessfully differentiated from the Rhinoceros Oath on the Montreal test 😲). But the unprecedented over-the-top press session afterward has convincingly been identified by notable commentators as Trump-thump rather than medical information. If it's not information, it's not censoring information. (Not that it is "censoring" anything else, either.) SPECIFICO talk 22:18, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

To be crystal clear, I'm not advocating "censoring" "excellent health", I'm advocating adding the very legitimate counterpoint. Per policy. I'm no longer clear what you're advocating, SPEC. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:24, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Just a random comment, but you folks are aware that the Hippocratic oath isn't actually legally binding (patient confidentiality and protection laws are). --2001:999:43:B30E:A994:E6AF:910A:FED9 (talk) 09:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

But the Oath doesn't have to be legally binding to be binding in other spheres, e.g. the medical profession. A physician may be struck off the medical register for contravening it, and lose their right to practice medicine. 2.28.151.167 (talk) 08:41, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Other comments

• Also the famed Dr. Gupta on CNN and various ones on broadcast news. And there was the bit this morning where right-leaning Republican Joe Scarborough compared his own height and weight to the figures the MD presented and sneered. SPECIFICO talk 19:54, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  
• Experts interviewed by NY Times concerning cardiac and other risk factors: Trump Heart Health and Cholesterol.
  
• Newsweek: Trump's Dangerous weight and skyrocketing cholesterol SPECIFICO talk 21:37, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Consensus or not?

Just noticed this after the discussion was closed. I don't think that proposal 1A has strong enough support (7-4) to be included in the consensus list. More details at User talk:Mandruss/Archive 6#Trump health proposal 1A. — JFG ^talk 14:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

@JFG: Sigh. 7-4 is a ratio of 1.75:1. Put another way, there are nearly 43% more editors supporting proposal 1A. By weight of argument and number in support, this is a consensus by any reasonable definition. Is this proposed language really so objectionable that you want to stand in the way of a pretty obvious consensus for approval? -- Scjessey (talk) 14:56, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Even if we just look at the numbers, 7-4 in an informal survey is a weak consensus. When we read the arguments in the discussion, the consensus looks even weaker, with several commenters torn between this wording, a stronger one, a weaker one, or outright removal. We have reserved the "current consensus" items for much stronger "slam-dunk" surveys, and for broader RfC-adjudicated discussions. The way forward is either more discussion to hammer out a stronger consensus among "regulars", or an RfC to gather more eyeballs. — JFG ^talk 16:02, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. I believe you are trying to impose a harder standard of "consensus" because you disagree with the result of the discussion. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:30, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

The consensus seems pretty strong to me. The only solid oppose was from Emir of Wikipedia. The other opposes cited dimes a dozen and armchair doctors (?), which is not really a fair representation of the sources.- MrX 🖋 17:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I didn’t take part in this discussion as I’m not convinced any mention of the physical warrants inclusion. However, as it is to be included, I think prop 1A is the best of the options. O3000 (talk) 17:58, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

My proposal is best and it only gets more obvious with time. Remove this -- it's recentism, notnews, etc. He's lived 70 years. We'd need 7 articles to detail all the times he came out of a physical on two feet. SPECIFICO talk 20:21, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

@Scjessey: No, I don't even personally care that much about the text. I'm just noticing that this particular discussion fell short of the usual standard to cement a "current consensus" item. — JFG ^talk 20:24, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

JFG has clarified that he feels less strongly about the close and consensus than about the list entry. He is correct that this consensus is weaker than what we have traditionally included in the list; otherwise we would have a hundred entries by now. In hindsight I think my thinking was unconsciously influenced by a comment I made 9 days ago. I would support keeping the close and the article change, and losing the list entry. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:27, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

A better alternative would be to reopen the thread. Ask folks like me for a simple up or down on the 1A language, and you'll end up with clear consensus that you can ask somebody to close. Either that or call it consensus straight off. It's just kicking the can otherwise, and it's buying a problem in the future, imo. SPECIFICO talk 23:52, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

The proposal was up for over 8 days. If you feel more participation is needed, start an RfC. That wouldn't guarantee inclusion in the list by any means, as an RfC could easily produce an equally weak consensus or none at all. As I said, we have not included borderline consensuses in the list and I feel it's a bad idea to start now. The strength calculation considers not only margin but also amount of participation (it's also supposed to include strength of arguments, but as I've said I've never seen anything more than a head count when there's no clear answer in policy). ―Mandruss ☎ 00:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I think implementing the change, but not listing it at the top of this page as "consensus", is a good outcome. Basically we had a local consensus for it for now, but not an overpowering enough consensus to list it in the "this is the way it's supposed to be" section. In other words, future discussion could well produce a different outcome without making a federal case out of it.--MelanieN (talk) 00:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I haven't edited much at this article, and its pretty clear I don't understand what that list is about, if an RfC outcome might not be included and an RfC cannot change those consensus texts. At any rate, we'll see how long this lasts before somebody tries to remove the NPOV commentary from the press coverage. SPECIFICO talk 00:20, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

If that happens, it might call for an RfC in which we could hope for a consensus strong enough to add to the list. But even list items are subject to WP:CCC; the only real differences are the 1RR exemption (prior talk page consensus required) and easy access to the supporting discussion(s). And the list items rightly carry more weight precisely because they are the strongest consensuses. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:25, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Maybe all this warrants some explanation at the top of list, for the uninitiated? The obvious downside being that the more prose there is, the more likely none of it will be read. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

"This is a list of the strongest consensuses and, as such, they carry more weight than others. Like any consensus, they are subject to consensus can change (except for its proposal-by-editing clause), but they will generally be more difficult to change than consensuses not listed here." ―Mandruss ☎ 12:19, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think we need to spell out inclusion criteria in excruciating details; there are plenty enough warnings which make the article already quite intimidating to newcomers. Common sense should rule. The warning notice when you edit the consensus list is clear enough imo. — JFG ^talk 15:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Well ok, but that notice says nothing about selectivity; in fact it implies no selectivity. "Editors may only edit this page if there is consensus to do so, established by discussion." And the explanation isn't just for editors updating the list anyway. (My opinion of common sense can be found here, as I've found it to vary wildly between individuals. Just yesterday an editor schooled me on what they called common sense, which was later shown to be a small-minority opinion, and that's more the rule than the exception.) ―Mandruss ☎ 16:55, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Restoring removal of RS DUE WEIGHT health information

The health section seems to have been degraded since we began discussing the improvements in the preceding topic here. In particular, the word "excellent" which most RS put in quotes to attribute it to the examining MD, have been removed with the false edit summary that they are "scare quotes". Not. Also, the information from the examining MD that POTUS' elevated cholesterol was not adequately managed by his dosage of Crestor and that the physician is increasing the dosage has been removed. Most impartial physicians who have reviewed the publicly available record have stated that POTUS is significantly overweight and that his high cholesterol, weight, belly fat, diet, and lack of exercise point to a diagnosis of early stage heart disease. We will need to find the proper way to incorporate that information in the article, but to remove the physician's own statements about "excellent" health and about his upping POTUS' meds can't help us here. Does anyone object to reinstating the statin sentence and the "excellent" quotes, per RS? There are abundant RS for the statin dosage, e.g. [ https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/17/us/politics/trump-physical-heart-health-cholesterol.html] SPECIFICO talk 18:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of quotes around excellent; that's what the man said, we are paraphrasing, quotation marks around that one word are inappropriate. (So to be clear, I object to restoring them.) And I don't think we should create a "rebuttal section", quoting outside physicians in attempts to contradict the physician who examined him. At most we might include one comment, which Dr. Gupta expressed well in the Q&A section (sorry, don't have a link right now, paraphrasing): "How can a man who is overweight, has high cholesterol, eats a poor diet, and doesn't exercise be described as being in excellent health?" I would strongly oppose quoting anyone who thinks they can remote-diagnose heart disease. This has been our position here through several years: we do not cite "armchair" medical diagnoses by people who did not actually examine the patient. --MelanieN (talk) 21:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

P.S. I am ok with restoring the information that he increased the statin dose. That's fairly routine, but it comes from the doctor who examined him, so it is of far more credibility than outside commentary. --MelanieN (talk) 23:07, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Maron and Topol's comments are not armchair diagnoses, as I said above. You don't have to touch the patient to say whether a set of test results suggest "excellent health", which were Jackson's words. I haven't proposed saying word one about heart disease, only that these doctors strongly dispute the "excellent health" characterization based on the test results. And, for organization's sake, I wish you'd put your response in the subsection where that is being discussed. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Mandruss, you didn't mention heart disease, but SPECIFICO did, and that's who I was replying to. I'll copy the relevant parts of my comments into the subsection above, if I can figure out which that is; there are an awful lot of conversations going on here about the same subject. --MelanieN (talk) 23:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, SPECIFICO and every distinguished heart specialist who's been consulted by the most reliable of mainstream sources. Jackson said his heart health is "excellent" and the quotes are used by the RS citations, they were not added for any inappropriate effect on WP. As Mandrus has clearly explained, the doctor's unprecedented and over the top press briefing went beyond his professional assessment. The Dana Milbank WaPo piece summarizes this very well. It is not armchair diagnosis, it's not repeating preposterous inflated talking points that the White House would like everyone to take at face value. As some have pointed out, the language was remarkably similar to the famed Dr. Bornstein fiasco during the campaign. SPECIFICO talk 00:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't know where in all this mass of discussion to put this, so I'll just say it here: About the cognitive screening exam: “perfect score” as we once had is a misnomer. The exam is designed so that EVERY normally functioning person is supposed to achieve a perfect score. The appropriate description would be that he “passed”. I see that’s what we now have in the article and it should stay. --MelanieN (talk) 00:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I'd be fine with leaving the entire 2018 exam bit out of the article. What I think we need to avoid is repeating and giving a platform for staged promotional narratives where RS identify them as such. Unless POTUS suffers a health crisis within the next year or two, I am sure this 2018 bit will not be in this article in 5 years and I see no reason why it should be in here now. SPECIFICO talk 00:32, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, please spare us your commentary about “flattery and sycophantic bluster” and “promotional presentation” (earlier) and “preposterous inflated talking points” and “staged promotional narratives” (now). We get it: you don’t believe Dr. Jackson, you don't believe anything the White House says, and you want the article to say so. So now let’s stick to sources and WP policies. One such policy is WP:NOTFORUM. --MelanieN (talk) 00:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Deep breath, MelanieN. Please do not miscast this as a personal issue. I am citing many RS over and over and many policy considerations. I'd appreciate it if you'd respond instead to what I stated -- what do you think of omitting this 2018 exam WP:NOTNEWS recentism bit entirely? SPECIFICO talk 00:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I very much doubt whether the comments I quoted just now were quotes from Reliable Sources. No, to answer your question, I don't think we should omit this information. It has gotten enough coverage to need a paragraph per WP:WEIGHT. --MelanieN (talk) 00:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

What about recentism and notnews? Lots of things get this much coverage and never make it into WP articles, don't they? Dana Milbank asks "is the doctor OK?" That's pretty strong stuff from a very moderate mainstream view. "staged promotional narratives" should not be controversial about any politician or public figure. WP editors need to know that. It may have come up a lot with this adminsitration because so many of the narratives have turned out to be false rather than just artfully colored. SPECIFICO talk 01:05, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Please drop the stick. Looks like Trump is in better health than most Americans his age, whether commenters like it or not. — JFG ^talk 18:32, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposal: Move recent exam to the Presidency article

Let's omit I see the uneventful annual physical as entirely appropriate subject matter for the Presidency of Donald Trump article. All recent presidents get these physicals with some sort of public statement, and in that context this one attracted at least the standard level of attention due to the unfortunate excitement surrounding Wolff's highly promoted book. But in Wikipedia biographies, I don't see references to annual checkups. Not unless they produce real news of disease or disability, which is not the case here. The first two paragraphs of the current Health section content on this article give our readers noteworthy facts we might see in any biography article. The annual checkup does not. It's just another goofy artifact of the current media environment and the unfortunate timing surrounding the unverified denigration of POTUS in Michael Wolff's booktour. SPECIFICO talk 16:27, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• No oppose per proposer, but it would move the unresolved neutrality issue to that article. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose We have a "health" section. We mention the report from his private physician, issued during the primary, in that section. I can't see any justification for not listing the report from his current (White House) physician in the same place. It's true that we haven't always mentioned the annual physical for other presidents, but their annual physicals have not received this much WP:WEIGHT of coverage. --MelanieN (talk) 20:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support omission - A bad physical would be noteworthy, but an unremarkable one like this one is not. If this is considered notable, then the now-deleted "girther movement" article should be too, since many of the sources are the same. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:16, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

  For this patient, it's noteworthy that it's unremarkable. And note the 3 competing proposals to add the opposing medical opinion, above. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:50, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - A medical exam is about the person not the presidency. This one was notable for the inclusion of a mental cognitive test.PackMecEng (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

No, it drew media attention (briefly) because the physician publicized the cognitive screening. Of all the BLPs of 70+ year olds, how many discuss the fact that they did not fail a simple screening? Those who fail get treated for senility and we still don't include it in their BLPs unless there's some additional effect. Would you think the cognitive screening was encyclopedic content for any of hundreds of living septugenarian articles? I fully accept your reasoning with respect to the Presiency article, but not the personal bio. SPECIFICO talk 21:50, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

How many received over a years worth of daily coverage regarding their mental health? Then went and specifically took a mental health test from Obama's doctor to disprove those accusations. Seems like everyone was happy to include negative mental health information based on armchair doctors and when a real report comes out from someone that has been with him for a long time comes out to disprove it, it is no longer notable. PackMecEng (talk) 22:07, 20 January 2018 (UTC) Just to make clear, I do not mean you specifically comrade SPECIFICO. PackMecEng (talk) 22:13, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

everyone was happy to include negative mental health information based on armchair doctors - #Current consensus #21 seems to contradict that statement. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Yup, luckily level heads prevailed. PackMecEng (talk) 22:13, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support - A routine physical, with results that are only surprising in that they were reported as representative of "excellent health", is not significant enough to include in a prominent bio.- MrX 🖋 21:51, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Notable aspect of Trump throughout his life.. If this is moved it should be moved to some dedicated article about the health of Trump. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Do you mean to say that annual "no problems" updates have been put in this article since it first appeared? We already have the noteworthy health information in the first 2 paragraphs. What biographical information does the recent press briefing add to that? SPECIFICO talk 23:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support I think that suspicions about Trump's mental competence are being omitted anyway (?) in which case there is no point in including this. zzz (talk) 23:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support moving to Presidency article. This is only relevant because Trump is president, otherwise I strongly doubt the press would be covering his health. Also, numbers of prominent physicians would not be commenting on the data and challenging his "excellent health" diagnosis if he wasn't president. So, yes this belongs in the Presidency article more than here. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose – Health reports are about the person, not their presidency. — JFG ^talk 23:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

It really would be more helpful if you would assess the pros and cons of the move as set forth by other users in this thread. How's Bill Gates' liver function? Murdoch's cholesterol? SPECIFICO talk 00:51, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Glad you asked. If there was anything widely reported by RS about Bill Gates' liver function, I very much believe it would fit in our Bill Gates article, not in Microsoft or in Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. — JFG ^talk 01:12, 24 January 2018 (UTC)