Talk:Donald Trump

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Pstein92.

Page views for this article over the last 30 days
Detailed traffic statistics

Open RfCs and surveys

None.

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 Superseded by #15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 (Nov 2016, Dec 2016) (Superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)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 Superseded by #35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 (Sep 2016, February 2017, wording shortened per April 2017, upheld with July 2018) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019)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. Mention that Trump is the first president elected "without prior military or government service". (Dec 2016)

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 Superseded by #17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) (Superseded by RfC Aug 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)

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.
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)

What kind of coverage did his false (and true) campaign statements generate?

About those many controversial or false campaign statements... Did they generate much 'free (or earned) media coverage', much 'owned-media coverage', much 'paid-media coverage', or much 'media coverage' in aggregate? Using the definitions given in the Earned media article:

(1) Earned (free) media: They were mentioned in "traditional media outlets, word-of-mouth conversations, and online posts". (2) Owned media: They were mentioned in "websites, blogs, Twitter accounts, and Facebook pages" owned by the Trump and Clinton campaigns. (3) Paid media: The Clinton campaign notedly paid for "television, radio, print, and online advertising" that mentioned them.

Saying that Trump's statements generated much 'free media coverage' could suggest that they didn't also generate a noteworthy amount of owned-media and paid-media coverage.

Worse to come, this time from Merriam-Webster Unabridged: "controversial. 1. Relating to or arousing controversy." "controversy. 1. Discussion, dispute, debate." It looks like we're saying that the subject made a lot of discussion-arousing statements (both true and false) and that they aroused a lot of discussion. Some readers may understandably think we're trying to make a point (but what?). --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:25, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Didn't see this section earlier: I shortened it to "much media coverage" while keeping the link to Earned media. Alternately we could say "earning much media coverage" instead of "generating much (free/earned) media coverage". What do you think? — JFG ^talk 05:57, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: I think it's best to be as brisk as possible here. "...earning much media coverage" is admirably brisk. --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:30, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

OK. Applied to proposal above. — JFG ^talk 06:45, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

"Much media coverage" is better, but I think "generating" is a better than "earning".- MrX 13:35, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I prefer what is currently in the article, "generating much free media coverage". The fact that he got all that free coverage has been cited [1] as one reason why he was able to win despite spending about half what his opponent spent on the campaign. --MelanieN (talk) 14:16, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Mmmhhh... That cuts both ways: many commentators argued that most of the free media coverage was negative and hampered his chances. I don't think we can judge. On the wording, I don't really mind if we keep "generating" rather than "earning", I was just trying to be brief. — JFG ^talk 15:57, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't proposing to say if the free media coverage was good or bad for him; I was just pointing out that he got it, and that Reliable Sources refer to it as free media coverage. So should we - not as "much media coverage", but as "much free media coverage". In discussion above you seem to have removed the word "free"; I think it is important and reliable-source based, and should be restored. --MelanieN (talk) 16:06, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with MelanieN. It's important to keep "free coverage". Many RS noted that it was highly unusual, and for such a wealthy candidate it created a huge disadvantage for others. He literally sucked all the air out of others' campaign coverage. They were drowned and not heard. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:38, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

The term of art is "earned media", i.e. coverage you don't have to pay for, and we link to an article explaining all about it. That's more precise than "free media", which might imply that media channels donated free advertising slots or gave Trump's campaign spokespeople extra time. I don't think that's what happened, as we usually saw more Trump-bashers on air. The typical scenario was rather: Trump says something stupid, false or shocking; media invite outraged guests and debate the unhinged insanity for 3 days; Trump wins some primary; "how is that even possible?"; Trump says something stupid again; "it's the beginning of the end"; rinse and repeat. A live soap opera. Meanwhile, Clinton went along for weeks or months giving no interviews, so the media had nothing to talk about. And when she did say something, it was often along the lines of "vote for me because Trump is dangerous", so the spotlight was on Trump again. I don't know if it was a brilliant strategy on his part or a clash of messages unwittingly helped by the media. One thing is certain: the attention was on him all along the campaign. — JFG ^talk 17:20, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

A suggestion, to avoid the earned/free distinction, while being truthful to sources: "generating much media attention." An earlier version of the lead had something like "generating an unprecedented level of media attention" but that was too long and pompous. — JFG ^talk 17:26, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I still think "free" is important, not just "media attention". As for "free" vs. "earned": "earned" may be a term of art but it is not in common use. Google hits for Trump and "free media" : 300,000. Google hits for Trump and "earned media": 56,800. --MelanieN (talk) 17:58, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

How about saying "free" but piping it to "earned"? In other words, free media? --MelanieN (talk) 18:01, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I think that's what we have now. The term "free" is what RS used. They didn't highlight any term of art, but our piping provides a service to readers. Hopefully it fits and isn't a SYNTH violation. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:41, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, "free" is more used than "earned", but both terms are potentially biased. How about another adjective, such as "extensive media coverage", "intense media attention", "widespread coverage", "yuge covfefe"? — JFG ^talk 19:21, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

How about going with what Reliable Sources call it, instead of trying to make up our own description? --MelanieN (talk) 19:36, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: I've been thinking about Wikipedia's stated purpose (to "better inform the reader"). What we're trying to inform readers here is that so many of Trump's statements were so false or otherwise provocative that he stole his opponents' thunder. (Not that this may have cost Clinton the election, which is a nonfalsifiable hypothesis.)

But our current wording may be somewhat misleading in its implications.

1. As pointed out at Jared Kusher, Trump spend 59% as much as Clinton, not 50%. So he spent nearly 60% as much as she did on paid media coverage.

2. As pointed out at Hillary Clinton presidential campaign (citing AP), more than 40% of Clinton's campaign ads featured raw footage of Trump. All that was paid media, not "free". Paid for by Clinton's campaign. (This was her doing, not his or the media's.)

3. The same article points out (in the Basket of deplorables section) that Clinton has acknowledged making a very controversial false statement alleging that grossly half of Trump's supporters were racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, or Islamophobic. Some mainstream sources have hypothesized that Clinton's consequent free media coverage could have been one of several particular, named factors significant in her losing the election. Note that Trump's campaign didn't pay for any of this (rather, it sold merchandise featuring her language).

All that aside, here's some revised phrasing that may be a bit fairer to the subject: Many of his campaign statements were so provocative or contrary to fact as to earn him an unprecedented volume of free media coverage. --Dervorguilla (talk) 20:21, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Our purpose is not to make the subject look good by twisting reality and violating our WP:NPOV policies.- MrX 20:52, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

"Controversial or false" has been subjected to many, many discussions here. It always has consensus. Don't even think about substituting some other wording for that. --MelanieN (talk) 21:16, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

That's correct, we can't change this strong consensus. However, the rest of Dervorguilla's proposal has merit. I'd be comfortable with Many of his campaign statements were controversial or false, generating a large volume of free media coverage. ("unprecedented" may be true but sounds a bit over-the-top). — JFG ^talk 22:16, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I'd support this. --MelanieN (talk) 22:29, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Me too. Using "much" would make it more concise, so I'd support that as well. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:48, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

The word unprecedented has been way overused since newscasters discovered it. The word fits perfectly; but I'm OK with its removal as it has lost its impact. Objective3000 (talk) 00:30, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

a large volume of -> much ―Mandruss ☎ 02:45, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Many + Much = Meh, not encyclopedic tone. — JFG ^talk 04:10, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I think it should say oodles, because OODLES. It sells itself with its awesomeness. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:55, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I think the lead should say "considered controversial or false by Scjessey".  :-) Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:01, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

...and by most RS. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:48, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

@JFG, MrX, MelanieN, BullRangifer, Objective3000, Scjessey, and Anythingyouwant: N.G. See MOS:LEAD, § BLP. "When writing about controversies, make sure the lead correctly reflects the entirety of the article." We're taking 3.1% of the lead to reflect 0.4% of the article, a 7× magnification. Also, we're focusing on our own concerns while overlooking our associates' historic concerns as manifested in the consensus-founded article text: In part due to his fame, Trump received an unprecedented amount of free media coverage... He attracts free media attention, sometimes by making outrageous comments. --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:39, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

See How to create and manage a good lead section -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:23, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I've tagged "generating" with the Citation needed: lead template. The article just says part of the coverage was generated by his fame, and some by his outrageous comments. ("Outrageous", not "false".) See WP:BURDEN. --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Either the text about media coverage or the tag shouldn't be there. Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:56, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps we can eliminate the causation by writing "Many of his public statements were controversial or false, and his campaign received extensive media coverage." Or in two sentences: "His campaign received extensive media coverage. Many of his public statements were controversial or false." — JFG ^talk 07:39, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Even more neutral with a semicolon: "His campaign received extensive media coverage; many of his public statements were controversial or false." — JFG ^talk 13:00, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

The first proposal creates a non-sequitur (and if it doesn't then we should explain that the reason for the media coverage were the statements). Same for the one with the semicolon. I'm fine with the second two sentence sentences.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:05, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. @Dervorguilla: would you be satisfied with the two-sentence version? "His campaign received extensive media coverage. Many of his public statements were controversial or false." — JFG ^talk 19:45, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: I don't see how I could reasonably object. (Although a political speechwriter might prefer: "They were con-tro-ver-sial and con-trary to fact!!!"... --Dervorguilla (talk) 20:11, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Great; I'll update the article accordingly and we'll see if it sticks… — JFG ^talk 20:22, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

@JFG and Dervorguilla: While the two of you happily agreed on a brand new wording and put it into the article "to see if it sticks", you ignored the fact that we had a pretty clear consensus here to say "free" (piped to earned) media. I am OK with your two-sentence format but I would like to see "free" added. --MelanieN (talk) 23:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: How about "His campaign earned extensive free media coverage."? No change in meaning, but it may help some readers understand the sentence better without chasing the link. Otherwise they might wonder whether maybe the media had to give him free coverage under some federal law requiring equal coverage. This wording makes clear that he had to do something to receive it. --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:03, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, it was clearer the way it was before (saying or implying that the controversial / false statements were what earned him the coverage). But that might be an overstatement, going beyond the sourcing. This is an improvement and I'll go along with it if the rest of you do. --MelanieN (talk) 03:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done[2] — JFG ^talk 05:44, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

"Despite" VS "While"

With this edit the word "while" was changed to "despite" by MelanieN with the reasoning consensus has been against "despite" in this sentence; POV; seems to imply that he shouldn't have won. It is implied that he should not have won, the victory at the College but loss at the popular vote is an unexpected result. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:33, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: No, it implies that he might not have won. See "Learner’s Definition of Despite". "Without being prevented by (something). • Used to say that something happens or is true even though there is something that might prevent it from happening or being true."

Compare with "Learner’s Definition of While". "3. In spite of the fact that; although." <"While (he is) respected, the mayor is not liked.">

Also, note that while is a conjunction, not a preposition. So the phrase "...while losing the popular vote" = the clause "...while he was losing the popular vote". Some English-language learners (especially recent immigrants) may well misunderstand the text as written.

While MOS says the lead should be written in a clear, accessible style, that doesn't always happen. Your call here. --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:31, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure any of "and the fifth to have won election while losing the popular vote" needs to be included in the lede. However, the entire lede is being re-written on this talk page. I would discuss the concerns there and leave the article as it stands (saying "while") until the lede is replaced or the proposal discussion dies out. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:09, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: Wise counsel. (I must assume you're excluding any WP:BLPSTYLE violations found.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:25, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Unless "Donald Trump" is misspelled, I'd recommend avoiding any edits to the lede until the above discussion is finished. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:26, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: See aide-mémoire above. --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:30, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, the RfC consensus from March rejected any versions of "losing the popular vote", after many threads about this issue over several months of debate. The wording "while losing the popular vote" was added in May via a much smaller informal survey. The word "despite" is a very recent proposal. If we want to keep any of this, we should hold a new RfC to validly overturn the March consensus. But I agree with Power~enwiki that this can wait until the lead trimming discussion is settled. Please voice your opinion on the trimmed versions at #Merging the forked discussions so we can at least close that part soon. — JFG ^talk 06:36, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

US Wars under Trump

Trump has expanded US war efforts in Iraq, Somalia, Syria, Afghanistan, and Yemen. In Afghanistan, he delegated Defense Secretary Mattis the authority to set Troop levels and the Department of Defense sent an additional 4,000 troops to Afghanistan in June of 2017. Trump declared both Yemen and Somalia areas of active hostility. He has also provided the military with additional authorities, easing some rules that were designed to protect civilians.

Sources

As one of those things that the general public pays no attention to but will have relevance in 100 years, I think we should develop a short section on US war efforts under Trump. We have seen some important expansion in those wars and some additions to ongoing US conflicts that need input into the article. I started a barebones suggestion, above. I would ask some help in further development.Casprings (talk) 03:42, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Casprings, are we supposed to see the forest for the trees? Drmies (talk) 03:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I hope. Expansion of wars and the delegation of authorities to the Pentagon to further expand them seems pretty forest-like to me.Casprings (talk) 03:46, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

@Casprings:. I checked your cite to Landler & Gordon. They do say he's made a decision to expand, they don't say he "has expanded". I'm not going to fact-check the rest of your information. Publish none of this material until you've provided us with direct quotations from multiple high-quality sources that directly support the claim (per WP:BURDEN, WP:BLP, and so forth). Thank you. --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:53, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

@Dervorguilla: One, there are two cites there. Both cites show that US troop numbers are increasing. That would mean if we use common english and Wikipedia:Summary style, that the wording "the war is expanding" should be fine. We don't use copy and paste for copyrighted work, I didn't think.Casprings (talk) 10:08, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

@Casprings: "Both cites show that US troop numbers are increasing." OK, where do they show it? --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

My concern isn't the sourcing, it is the synthesis. Syria policy is already discussed elsewhere (Syrian Civil War and Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration); I'm not sure it's possible to summarize the situation briefly enough to include in this article. The other situations aren't particularly "hot" conflicts. In Iraq, the US has permanent military bases where troops are stationed, it could be WP:MILL coverage of periodic troop-count fluctuations. In Somalia, it's only "dozens" of troops. [3] None of these were as eventful as the Qatar situation. It's too early to claim any general trend. Without any fundamental changes in the nature of the war efforts to cite, this appears to be making a mountain out of a mole-hill. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:07, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: The text isn't done. It needs work. I am certain the first sentence is okay, but wording and sourcing need adding.Casprings (talk) 10:13, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Best keep such details for Presidency of Donald Trump and Foreign policy of the Trump administration. Nobody knows what "will have relevance in 100 years", that's a totally subjective and speculative opinion. Unless sources explain how and why Trump's foreign policy is particularly aggressive, we shouldn't mention it. Personally, I don't see much difference yet with the permanent wars the U.S. has been embroiled in under the Bush and Obama presidencies. — JFG ^talk 07:45, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: OF COURSE what to include in an article on Trump is subjective. There is more material then one could possibly cover and one is going to have to make subjective judgements about what is the most important. 2. The expansions of wars is something that is covered by many WP:RS. See

• http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/04/trumps-dangerous-expansion-of-executive-war-powers-000387
• https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/apr/10/not-just-syria-trump-ratcheting-up-wars-world
• https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2017-03-22/president-donald-trump-is-doubling-down-on-wars-in-the-middle-east

As for rather to include this or other facts, Wikipedia:10YT seems relevant.Casprings (talk) 10:25, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

This debate would be better suited to the aforementioned presidency and foreign policy pages. — JFG ^talk 13:01, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality of 'investigation' statement

"An assessment of evidence and circumstances will be completed before a final decision is made to launch an investigation of the president of the United States regarding potential obstruction of justice." Pierre Thomas, "Where Things Stand with Special Counsel Mueller’s Russia Probe", ABC News, June 19, 2017.

It looks to me like Thomas is disputing Vitkovskaya's view that the FBI is "investigating Trump for possible obstruction of justice". So, the statement that "The Washington Post later reported that ... the FBI started investigating whether Trump had obstructed justice" may not fairly represent the view of one prominent high-quality RS that the FBI had not yet launched an investigation of Trump. Consensus notwithstanding, we have to add that conspicuous viewpoint.

Terminology note: Investigating whether A did X = an investigation of A regarding potential incident X. No meaningful difference. --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:34, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I've added Thomas's view and removed the POV tag. --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:57, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks; I've used this new source to clarify the status of the obstruction investigation on the Russian interference page.[4] — JFG ^talk 11:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually "contradicted" didn't do much to clarify the situation. I have now put in what the ABC report actually said: that there is a preliminary inquiry but not a formal investigation. --MelanieN (talk) 16:38, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

That's even better, thanks. — JFG ^talk 18:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

too loaded with no prior military or government service

Methinks it's sufficient to replace that with no prior public service.

38.88.111.193 (talk) 01:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, but we discussed that at great length a few months ago and decided on this wording for clarity. See "Current consensus" #8 at the top of this page. --MelanieN (talk) 01:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think we discussed the IP's suggestion with is clearer than the current wording and avoids the inherent bias. TFD (talk) 02:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

The military record of presidential candidates has long been a measuring stick in American politics, it is quite relevant to this biography. Trump's lack of government experience is similarly important to discuss, as most if not all past presidents has either military or government credentials. TheValeyard (talk) 03:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

We absolutely did discuss "with no prior public service". Here's the link: Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 41#Prior government experience --MelanieN (talk) 18:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Try photo with smile

Photo with smile

Try photo with smile:

File:Condoleezza Rice and Donald Trump in the Oval Office, March 2017 (cropped smiley).jpg.

Change it if you don't like it.

Whatever, feel free to change it. Sagecandor (talk) 05:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

This has been hashed to death. Check the archives. The photo on the White House website didn't have a smile, why have one here? EvergreenFir (talk) 05:35, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

There's gotta be a public domain official photo of this guy ??? Sagecandor (talk) 05:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Nope. — JFG ^talk 09:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

And please don't "feel free to change it." While we haven't had a new RfC to decide what photo to use, the photos were edit-warred and the subject was discussed to death for months. For god's sake let's not start another photo edit war. The current photo isn't bad (certainly better than the "official photo" that turned out to have copyright problems) and seems to be stable. Let's leave it alone. --MelanieN (talk) 15:38, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Don't you think he looks tired. Sagecandor (talk) 16:53, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Not gonna get into debates about it. It's OK, it's better than many other suggestions, my advice is to just leave it alone. YMMV. --MelanieN (talk) 17:55, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

That picture is terrible. It looks like someone that just passed gas and hopes everyone will blame the family dog. TheValeyard (talk) 18:06, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Badass presidents don't smile.

LOL, indeed! Now it's clear why Trump has no dog… The press wouldn't give his everey WP:FART so much covfefe! — JFG ^talk 21:17, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

One of the problems with his smiley photos is they look staged and all other thoughts vacate the premises. Agree with MelanieN, YMMV but please leave this alone. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Yup, Trump is not the smiling kind. Neither was FDR. — JFG ^talk 21:17, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

lol, whoever put that FDR photo with that caption is a God. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 06:36, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Russian efforts to interfere

Let's find out which statement most fairly and conservatively represents the balance of perspectives of high-quality sources worldwide: (1) "Russia interfered in the election"; (2) "Russia attempted to interfere in the election"; (3) "Russia was accused of interfering in the election"; or (4) "Russia was accused of attempting to interfere in the election".

We should consider established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world. For the moment, let's focus on statements (1) and (4). If the two viewpoints are more-or-less equally conspicuous among high-quality sources, we should describe both. Let's try to find an authoritative tertiary source that does this for us in a disinterested way.

Meanwhile, here's a compilation of the relevant statements in the body text: (a) [three persons stated that the Russian government] "attempted to intervene"; (b) [one person affirmed that it] "interfered"; (c) [one person told Congress of its] "efforts to interfere"; (d) [two persons called the accusation a] "false narrative [of] interference [or a] fictitious explanation"; and (e) [one organization] "accused [it] of trying to influence" [but three persons or organizations] "denied the allegations". --Dervorguilla (talk) 19:38, 23 June 2017 (UTC) 20:27, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

• I personally prefer the phrasing "During the election, Russia was accused of interfering to support his campaign". The problem is that "interfere" is a terribly vague word. It could mean altering vote counts (which, even after some recent testimony, reliable sources unanimously agree did not occur), or Russia paying trolls on Twitter, or Vladimir Putin saying an equivalent of "I like Trump" on national television (and reliable sources unanimously agree that Putin preferred Trump to be elected over Clinton). If we can't refer to a specific case of interference in the lede, we should mention only the non-controversial fact: that the accusation was prominent and not entirely baseless. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:50, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

• Option 3 for sure. The original wording simply states that Russia did interfere in the election as if it is an undisputable fact. The US intelligence community accused the Russian govt. of interference, but there's no conclusive proof of that, at least not now. Option 3 is more neutral and accurate. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 20:27, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

It looks like we've got a disinterested tertiary source that supports (2). From "United States Presidential Election of 2016", Britannica.com:

"Federal agents strongly suspected that Russian actors were WikiLeaks’ sources... The daily drip clearly interfered with the Clinton campaign’s efforts..."

"Clinton supporters [were] variously blaming ... Russian computer hacking ... for her defeat."

"The heads of 17 U.S. intelligence agencies agreed that Russia had engaged in a systematic effort to influence the election in Trump’s favour."

Conclusion: It would appear that Russia did "attempt to influence" the election. (See Merriam-Webster Unabridged: "effort. 1. Expenditure of energy toward a particular end; forceful attempt.") --Dervorguilla (talk) 20:27, 23 June 2017 (UTC) 20:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

There are other problems too with the sentence in question. The article currently says: "Russia interfered in the election to support his candidacy." This appears to suggest that the Russians' motive was more to help Trump than to hinder Clinton, and that Russia successfully engaged in electoral fraud. So, I'd suggest "U.S. intelligence agencies are confident that Russia hacked the election to support his candidacy and oppose Clinton's, though there is no evidence that the election outcome was altered by election fraud." Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:32, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the version that's supported by sources. They did interfere to help Trump AND hinder Clinton (are you saying there's a difference?). And no, it doesn't imply they "successfully engaged in electoral fraud". That's moving the goalposts. First it was "they didn't interfere" then it was "we don't know if they interfered" then it was "they allegedly interfered" then it was "ok they interfered but only to sow chaos not to help Trump" then it was "ok they interfered to help Trump but Trump's associates didn't know about it" then it was "ok they interfered and some Trump associates knew about it but they didn't collude with the" then it was "ok they interfered and some Trump associates colluded with them but Trump himself didn't" and... that's where we are now. Bottomline is the text DOES NOT say "election outcome was altered by election fraud". So what are you talking about? Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

And this "though there is no evidence..." is total WP:OR and POV. You should know better than to even propose it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:49, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Please see yet again WP:NPA, which bars "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki." It is untrue that the intelligence community believed Russia's efforts significantly affected the outcome of the 2016 election.[5] Quite the opposite.[6] This is appropriately conveyed by saying "U.S. intelligence agencies are confident that Russia hacked the election to support his candidacy and oppose Clinton's, though there is no evidence that the election outcome was altered by election fraud." Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:31, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

What accusations are you talking about? That you are claiming that the sentence says - err, sorry, "implies" - something which it doesn't say or imply and are trying to use this as an excuse for removing it? Well, that's right above in your comment so there's no "lack of evidence".Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:46, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I am talking, for example, about your accusation that I am engaged in "total WP:OR and POV. You should know better than to even propose it." You provide a long litany of quotes that I never uttered --- I was not even involved in the discussion, and yet you accuse me of somehow moving goalposts ("That's moving the goalposts. First it was 'they didn't interfere' then it was 'we don't know if they interfered' then it was 'they allegedly interfered' then it was 'ok they interfered but only to sow chaos not to help Trump' then it was 'ok they interfered to help Trump but Trump's associates didn't know about it' then it was 'ok they interfered and some Trump associates knew about it but they didn't collude with the' then it was 'ok they interfered and some Trump associates colluded with them but Trump himself didn't' and... that's where we are now. Bottomline is the text DOES NOT say 'election outcome was altered by election fraud". So what are you talking about?'"). Trying to communicate civilly with you is a lot like being on the other side of the fan when it hits the fan. Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:03, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

BTW, that VOA article is pretty bad. The headline doesn't even match the article text, nevermind that it's cherry picking Johnson's statement.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:54, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

According to the VOA report, "they said there is no evidence that Moscow was able to change the vote count." A million other reliable sources say the same thing, but you just want our lead to say the Russians interfered, without even slightly hinting to our readers that it made no difference in the outcome. To me, that seems like a misleading way to write the lead. Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:36, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, we should stick to a verifiable summary of what we know which is that Russia interfered in the election. Some of the details like their hacking into election systems, manipulating voter data in a county database, stealing nearly 90,000 voter records, attempting to co-opt members of Trump's campaign, and possible collusion by Trump satellites can be briefly covered later in the article.- MrX 11:44, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

The Russians did a lot more than simply hack (we are still finding out what all they did). Nobody has suggested election fraud which is an entirely different thing, Nobody has claimed (because no one knows and we will never know) whether their actions altered the outcome of the election. I think we should keep the sentence currently in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 20:37, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Right. Given what we know right now, the current sentence best describes the situation. If the situation changes we'll update it. But pretending that the sentence says something that it doesn't say as Anythingyouwant is doing, as an excuse to try and remove it is a strawman.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: The US Intelligence Community (USIC) was calling them "alleged hacked e-mails". Not "authenticated hacked e-mails" (or even just "hacked e-mails"). It's possible that they may be "leaked e-mails"; all we know is that USIC isn't saying it knows. --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:23, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

We've been over this at the relevant article. Most sources say they did. Hell, Trump and Tillerson themselves admitted they did, just deny "colluding" in it. Waste of time.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Is it interference or influence? And who are the "they", beyond "Russians"? Power~enwiki (talk) 20:53, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Right now the article says "interfered". Why does there need to be any "beyond"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:55, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

If there are no additional details as to what "Most sources" are describing, this topic probably isn't relevant to this article at all. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

We go by the RS. Russian interference are the words used by the RS. Objective3000 (talk) 21:00, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Other words used by the RS include "Russian effort to influence", and so forth. --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not getting your point. The sources say "interfered", we say "interfered" and we have an entire article titled "interfered". And from that somehow people get that... this isn't relevant to this article? Sorry, not following that illogic.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:49, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

"Russia was accused of interfering" is an undisputed fact. "Russia interfered to help Trump" is still a disputed assertion, like it or not. Best leave the details to the linked article, and keep things super-short in the lede of Trump's bio, for neutrality's sake. — JFG ^talk 21:32, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Russia was accused because they did it! I can't believe people are still trying to add expressions of doubt to this when there is no reasonable doubt. Russia interfered with the U.S. elections to get Trump elected, to prevent Clinton from being elected, and to undermine U.S. democracy. Those are facts that are no longer in dispute among mainstream sources, the U.S. Congress, U.S. Federal law enforcement, and the U.S. intelligence community.- MrX 22:36, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

You may believe they did it, some other people may believe they did not. There are RS going both ways, and 100 shades of grey in between, from "Russia wants to destroy US democracy" to "Dems are looking for excuses". If we're going to details, that becomes undue for Trump's bio (as was argued in the RfC discussing this a couple months ago). Fine for the lead of the 2016 election page. — JFG ^talk 23:23, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Wait, are you saying that there are current reliable sources that still say that Russia did not interfere with the U.S. election? We don't have to go into extensive detail in this article. Just say "Russia interfered in the election" and "Trump tried to interfere with the investigation of his campaign's role".- MrX 23:31, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

@MrX: Check Britannica, which says "US intelligence agencies agreed that Russia had engaged in a systematic effort to influence the election." ("effort. Expenditure of energy toward a particular end; forceful attempt." Merriam-Webster Unabridged.) The facts no longer in dispute: Russia tried to influence it and failed. The election outcome is valid, and Trump and Clinton got there on their own. (As they both have acknowledged.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 23:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I said "interfere", not "influence", so we are evidently in agreement here.- MrX 00:09, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

(←) @MrX: Not so. Check Black's Law Dictionary, then see whether you agree with my argument below.

I. "A influenced B" suggests "A induced B to change his decision". (B did change his decision.)

II. "A attempted to influence B" suggests "A tried to influence B, but didn't". (B didn't change his decision.)

III. "A interfered in [= meddled in] B's business" suggests "A tried to influence or did influence B". (B may or may not have changed his decision.)

IV. "A attempted to interfere in B's business" suggests "A tried to influence B, but didn't". (B didn't change his decision.)

Ideally the lead should suggest only that the Russians attempted to change the outcome, not that they may have changed it. Version II informs the reader better than do Versions I, III, or IV. (And Wikipedia's purpose is to 'better inform the reader'.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:46, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

No. They "interfered". Whether they "influenced" is an open question. You're acting like "interfered" implies "influenced". It doesn't. Version II is just weaselin'.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:51, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

No, "attempted to change the outcome" is vastly inferior than just saying "interfered", and it borders on original research. It misleads readers by suggesting a very narrow scope, when in fact we know that Russia successfully hacked into election systems, manipulated voter data in a county database, stole nearly 90,000 voter records, and so on. Of course, there is also the emerging evidence of collusion by Trump satellites, or maybe it was just a remarkable coincidence that so many of them them lied about their ties to Russia. We'll see.- MrX 11:32, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Donald Trump's tweet [7] is probably more of a re-hashing of the recent Breitbart [8] or Washington Post [9] pieces, rather than being intended as a statement of fact. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:15, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

"The Russian government interfered in the election to support his candidacy." - This needs to be removed. It's unsourced, unproven rumor rooted in baseless political accusation and bias. There is currently no evidence for such a statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:A:7:0:0:0:63 (talk) 05:19, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Several more proposals on Russia

There doesn't seem to be any consensus yet. I support removing this sentence from the lede if there is no consensus to be found; Russia is already discussed in the Comey dismissal sentence. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:09, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

A new version, from @ATC:, which I don't support myself: "There is emerging evidence that the Russian government interfered in the election to support his candidacy, but it has not been fully substantiated and is currently the subject of an ongoing investigation." Power~enwiki (talk) 20:09, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

A new proposal from me: "Russia attempted to influence the election results." It's shorter. I don't know whether they interfered or not, and I don't know whether "attempting to interfere" implies anything happened or not, but "attempt to influence" seems well-defined. They clearly did something, and it doesn't imply whether or not it mattered. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:15, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

A (very different) proposal: "Several figures in Trump's campaign resigned due to undisclosed ties to Russia". The meaning is different than the above, but it is factual and related to Russia. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:47, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree that any phrase we insert must be both short and neutral, and this may be a challenge! (See aborted RfC from March about this for some hints.) I like your proposal "Russia attempted to influence the election results" but that fails to mention any connection with Trump, which is strange in Trump's bio. I would amend it to "Russia attempted to influence the presidential election in support of Trump's candidacy." Not sure if that may be considered neutral, but that's the gist of what the intelligence reports have been saying since August 2016. — JFG ^talk 21:26, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I've removed this from the lede; it doesn't feel necessary with the "His election and policies sparked numerous protests." sentence there. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:56, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

The sentence on Russia should be returned, ASAP. The mention of Russia now has consensus.Casprings (talk) 02:29, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Right, even if there's some disagreement as to what the proper wording should be, there's no reason to remove this entirely, since, as Casprings points out, it has consensus.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:10, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

The article body gives it a subtopic weight of 0.011. So the article editors don't appear to consider it particularly important at this time. Maybe the consensus has changed? --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:31, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Recent changes to lead

I'm not a big fan of the way the lead was recently overhauled (should have been done one paragraph at a time with a separate header and survey for each, and using strikethrough/underline to indicate changes), and I objected during that process. Anyway, the changes have created several difficulties:

• "His campaign received extensive free media coverage. Many of his public statements were controversial or false." This is choppy writing, and these two sentences should be combined into one sentence as they were previously, because the desire for free media was reportedly a big reason for the controversial statements (or at least the latter contributed to the former), and the free media characterized the statements as controversial or false. Inserting a semicolon rather than a period would be a good start. Done

The discussion about the new lede considered that linking media coverage to Trump's controversial statements was WP:SYNTH. A semicolon is semi-synth, but grammatically better; we shouldn't go further than that. I suppose that readers who think there is a causal relation between both events will be comforted in their beliefs, whereas those who think extended covfefe was mostly due to other reasons will think Wikipedia is super neutral on this. Win-win. — JFG ^talk 21:28, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree; they're independently important points, and sources show they're related. I don't even know which one is supposed to cause the other. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:36, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

• "Trump dismissed FBI Director James Comey, and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed Robert Mueller as Special Counsel to investigate possible coordination between Trump's campaign and the Russian government." Bad syntax makes it sound at first like Trump fired Rosenstein, so insert the word "then" before "Deputy". Done

Why do we even mention Rosenstein? "Former CIA Director Robert Mueller was appointed Special Counsel to take charge of the investigation into Russian interference, links with Trump associates and potential obstruction of justice." Covers all bases. — JFG ^talk 23:54, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

• "He ordered a travel ban on citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries, but several federal courts issued preliminary injunctions preventing its implementation." This makes it sound like the ban was because of religion, was permanent, was not appealed to SCOTUS where litigation is ongoing, and was applicable to US citizens coming from these countries. Better to say something like "He temporarily banned travel of non-U.S. citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries that he deemed to be a security risk, and the U.S. Supreme Court is considering whether to let the ban proceed."
• "Russia interfered in the election to support his candidacy." This appears to suggest that the Russians' motive was more to help Trump than to hinder Clinton, and that Russia successfully engaged in electoral fraud. So, I'd suggest "Russia hacked the election to support his candidacy and oppose Clinton's, though there is no evidence that the election outcome was altered by election fraud."Moved to immediately-preceding talk page section. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I support the first two proposed changes without any further discussion. The Russia thing is already discussed above and you should comment there. The travel ban sentence is awkward in both versions; I'm neutral as to which is better. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:10, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I was told above to address these matters in a new section.[10]. That seems appropriate. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:14, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake, I was referring to "Russian efforts to interfere" directly above this one, not the mega-super-jumbo-thread. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:16, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay, moved. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:25, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't agree with Anything's proposals #3 or #4.

• Suggestion 3: "sounds like it was because of religion" As a matter of fact the courts issuing the injunctions said that Trump's earlier campaign comments suggested that it WAS because of religion. The lower courts HAVE blocked the travel ban for now, and SCOTUS has not agreed to hear it so don't mention them. The sentence currently in the article is accurate and neutral, and does not need to be modified with a bunch of "temporary" and "security risk" and other justifications for the ban.
• Suggestion 4: The Russians did a lot more than simply hack (we are still finding out what all they did). Nobody has suggested election fraud which is an entirely different thing, Nobody has claimed (because no one knows and we will never know) whether their actions altered the outcome of the election. Keep the sentence currently in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 20:37, 23 June 2017 (UTC) moving to the section above.

I don't know if it would be too long for the lede, but for the travel ban I would word it like: "Trump issued a temporary travel ban on nationals of seven Muslim-majority countries as an attempt to prevent terrorism, but several federal courts issued preliminary injunctions preventing its implementation. A revised ban, which exempted Iraqis and US citizens and permanent residents, was similarly blocked by federal courts and the Supreme Court is expected to consider whether to revert earlier court decisions". The problem with both the original sentence and your suggestion is that they don't make it clear there were two different executive orders, and that SCOTUS is considering the revised ban. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 20:40, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Way too much information for the lede, and especially for a biography. One short, summary sentence for the lede, a few more details in the "presidency" section, with most of the detail in related articles such as "immigration policy". The fact that there were two different executive orders is certainly not important enough for the lede. SCOTUS is not actually considering either version of the ban at this point. --MelanieN (talk) 20:46, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

• Let's use the most authoritative and accurate wording: "He ordered a ninety-day travel ban on citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries. --Dervorguilla (talk) 20:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I like that a lot. It's short, and short is good. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:00, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree; great condensed phrasing. — JFG ^talk 21:23, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

That's better than "He ordered a travel ban on citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries, but several federal courts issued preliminary injunctions preventing its implementation." But the title of the Order is "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States..." So at least the ostensible reason is security not religion. I disagree with only mentioning religion and not security. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I like it, certainly more direct and compact than my suggestion. Although I think "federal courts blocked it" should be at least mentioned to clarify to all readers that the ban is not in effect. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 23:06, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

OK, how about this? He ordered a ninety-day travel ban on citizens from seven countries with insufficient security controls, but several U.S. courts blocked the measure arguing it was discriminating against Muslims. — JFG ^talk 23:17, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

It's pending in SCOTUS, so why not just say SCOTUS is considering whether to let the ban proceed? That implies it's halted. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:35, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Maybe, but it's all moot: the 90 days have elapsed, and Trump's original justification ("we must figure out how to vet those people") should be fulfilled by now, if customs and immigration service are doing their job. The notable fact today is that federal judges took the rare step of double-guessing the president about what he called a security issue, and what they called a religious discrimination issue. My new summary addresses this central point, wouldn't you agree? — JFG ^talk 23:51, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

That wording seems very POV to me. The rationale for the order is in dispute and one should fairly provide the other sides arguments..Casprings (talk) 23:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

That's exactly what I'm suggesting: this wording shows the arguments of both sides: the White House says it's a travel ban for security reasons, the judges say it's a Muslim ban disguised under a security pretext. — JFG ^talk 00:03, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

User:JFG, it's not moot, because the district judge in Hawaii froze the 90-day internal review, and later the 9th circuit unfroze it. AKAIK, the 90 days is not up yet, but if it is then SCOTUS can still address a matter capable of repetition yet evading review. Some federal judges upheld the ban, others rejected it, and the matter is now before SCOTUS, so it's about as unsettled as can be. Instead of the current "He ordered a travel ban on citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries, but several federal courts issued preliminary injunctions preventing its implementation" I would support "He ordered a ninety-day travel ban on citizens from seven countries with purportedly insufficient security controls, but the U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether the measure unlawfully discriminates against Muslims." Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:45, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Please don't insert comments in the middle of other comments, e.g. [11]. It makes it very hard to discern who said what. A new comment should immediately follow a signature. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:47, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: By "moot", I don't mean the legal process, I mean the effective use of the temporary ban. The White House and DHS said they needed 90 days to straighten up their vetting process, and that in the meantime they deemed it too dangerous to let people from those countries come in (because of fake passports, dysfunctional states, etc.) Now, with all the legal delays, the time they requested has elapsed and Trump should have his cherished "extreme vetting" in place. I'm sure he'll fight the legal battle to the end, but it's moot. Or he lied and really wanted a permanent ban on those countries as a first step towards banning 1.6 billion Muslims! This hypothesis sounds utterly ridiculous to some people and extremely scary to some others. Isn't politics fun? — JFG ^talk 07:31, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

User:JFG, you write "Trump should have his cherished 'extreme vetting' in place." That's factually incorrect, because the Hawaii court slapped an injunction not just on the temporary ban but also on the "internal review" to determine what the temporary ban should be replaced with. The ban on internal review was only lifted by the Ninth Circuit a week ago. See "Appeals court allows Trump team to begin vetting review", USA Today (June 11, 2017). Anythingyouwant (talk)}

@Anythingyouwant: Thanks, I wasn't aware of this bit. Looks like an epic political battle indeed! <popcorn/> — JFG ^talk 12:35, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Wording of travel ban

The travel ban is certainly lede-worthy but the wording is way too long, and the more we argue details of the legal process, the longer it will get. This becomes excessive for the lede of Trump's biography. What is the weight of this event in his whole life? Even my latest proposal is too long, in reaction to various comments attempting to clarify details. I would suggest trimming all this to say:

He ordered a ninety-day travel ban on citizens from seven countries, which was blocked by U.S. courts.

Leave all details to the linked articles. Agree? Disagree? — JFG ^talk 07:31, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

"Thus far" been blocked. It's an active legal case, not a final decision. Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:00, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

So, this would be:

He ordered a ninety-day travel ban on citizens from seven countries, which has been blocked by U.S. courts thus far.

OK? — JFG ^talk 12:38, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Should tell the reader why the courts blocked it.Casprings (talk) 13:15, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

That would be very difficult because different courts said different things. The Hawaii district court relied on the First Amendment's religion clauses, but the judges of the Ninth circuit instead relied on statutes that purportedly inhibit discrimination based on nationality (as opposed to religion). Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:06, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

There's no need to tack "thus far" on the end, especially since it goes against WP:RELTIME. It's fine to say that it was blocked by U.S. courts. If at some point in the future it is unblocked, we modify the wording to say that it was temporarily blocked by U.S. courts. ~Awilley (talk) 06:32, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

That's a valid point, but it would not prevent us from mentioning that the matter is on appeal. Anyway, SCOTUS will probably speak to the matter tomorrow. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:31, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I think this is a good proposal. There is a lot more that could be said on the subject, but not in the lede of his biography. I would suggest a few tweaks to the proposed wording: "He ordered a temporary travel ban on citizens from six countries, but it has been blocked by U.S. courts." "which was blocked" sounds too final. I think "temporary" is enough without specifying ninety days. Your wikilink goes to the wrong travel ban, it should be the second (current) order #13780. That ban applies to only six countries. (He dropped Iraq.) --MelanieN (talk) 19:38, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Expanded war efforts?

The sentence U.S. war efforts expanded in Afghanistan, Syria, and Yemen. was added to the lede. I oppose this content for three reasons:

1. Prior to this addition, there was absolutely no mention of those events in the article body, except the one-off missile firing in Syria; now some people may want to shoe-horn the information to the body, but lede must follow body, not vice versa;
2. This is not a widely covered part of Trump's first few months as president, therefore undue for the lede of his bio; maybe worth discussing for the lede of Presidency of Donald Trump;
3. Any effective expansion is minor; the key difference outlined by sources is Trump's expanded delegation of powers to his generals.

Accordingly, I suggest to remove this sentence entirely.. — JFG ^talk 21:54, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

• Remove per BLP, BURDEN, and PUBLICFIGURE. The CinC is well-known living person, so if we can't find multiple high-quality RS documenting each allegation or incident, we leave it out. Neither Salon nor The Agenda is a high-quality RS. --Dervorguilla (talk) 23:10, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
• Abstain Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration makes no clear statements on anything. The 2017 Qatar diplomatic crisis isn't mentioned there, and it appears to be mostly a grab-bag of campaign positions and official news stories. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
• Include and add to body One, it is simply false that the expansion of the various US wars isn't being covered by media. A simple google news search of the the words "Yemen Afghanistan Somalia Trump" reveal stories such as:
  • The United States is stumbling into another decade of war
  • Civilian oversight of military: How Trump is testing its minimum levels
  • US military carries out first offensive airstrike in Somalia under Trump's new authorities
  • And on and one..

What may be true is that currently the US public (and many wikipedia editors) are not that interested in these stories. That may be true, but the fact is that the quick expansion of these wars under Trump is likely externally significant historically and deserve to be in any encyclopedia article about Trump. I think WP:10YT firmly apples here and that this should be included, despite the publics general disinterest. As many editors point out, this shouldn't be a newspaper and should have its eye towards long term relevance. Casprings (talk) 23:47, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

First, I didn't say it's not covered, I said it's much less covered than other stuff. Second, we can't judge today what will be significant tomorrow or in 10 years. Third, there is no major expansion of war efforts yet. Conclusion: undue weight for the lede of Trump's bio; better suited for Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration. — JFG ^talk 00:00, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

How is this not currently a major expansion? We have two new areas of active hostilities (Somalia and Yemen), we are putting bases in Syria and now regularly engaging the government of Syria (shot down a SU-22, etc), and we are increasing our troop size in Afghanistan by 40 percent. What do you call that?Casprings (talk) 00:04, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I call that undue weight for Donald Trump's bio, borderline off-topic because we never heard Trump say "I'm gonna bomb the hell out of Somalia". By all means go add this to the other more relevant articles. — JFG ^talk 00:25, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I am not seeing how his statements or non-statements are relavent. He is POTUS and it is occurring. Are we really arguing a major expansion of war under a person is undue for that persons bio? I don't buy that for a second. Should it be added other places? Sure. But if we are in agreement that this is a major expansion(which you don't dispute above), how is it not due for his bio?Casprings (talk) 00:34, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Obviously, we must agree to disagree. Let's see what our fellow editors say. — JFG ^talk 00:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh, also: other proposals to include Trump's foreign policy actions were rejected in the "new lede" discussion: Riyadh speech, arms deal, NATO position, North Korea standoff, Syria and Afghanistan bomb strikes. I don't see why we should single out the topics you personally deem more important (full disclosure: I deem his Riyadh speech more important when I look into my 10-year crystal ball – at least there was a Trump orb there! ). — JFG ^talk 00:42, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

They were. We must include the most important facts here. The TPP, Paris, etc. A US expansion of war thoughout muliple countries is on that level.Casprings (talk) 00:45, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

@Casprings: "What may be true is that currently the US public (and many wikipedia editors) are not that interested in these stories." I understand your perspective here, which I share. Wikipedia needs to get more people from the Middle East interested in working on this and other articles. --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:44, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

• Remove Facts should not be presented in order to push particular views, in this case that Trump has changed course from the Obama administration. Caspring's first source, which is an opinion piece in WaPo probably summarizes the information more accurately: "The United States is stumbling into another decade of war." I wouldn't mind if the lead actually said that, something like Trump has continued the military approach to the Middle East of previous presidents. TFD (talk) 00:58, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
• Comment. For comparison data, see Obama, at Foreign policy. "Early in his presidency, Obama ... announced an increase in U.S. troop levels [of] 17,000 military personnel [up from 15,000 = a 113% increase]... In March 2015, Obama ... authorized U.S. forces to provide logistical and intelligence support to the Saudis in their military intervention in Yemen." His administration's War in Somalia gets a section in a separate article. "The Administration ... deployed special operations forces, drones, air strikes and some military advisers." --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:48, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for those details. This goes to show that Trump is mostly continuing the Obama administration's war policy (adjusting a few operational parameters), which itself was probably continuing the Bush administration's war policy. Nothing to mention in Trump's biography, but certainly worth mentioning in Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration and Presidency of Donald Trump. Let's drop this please. — JFG ^talk 07:36, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

No it doesn't. These are major changes from the Obama administration and we can certainly debate the details with WP:RS. That said, when he took over there were 9,400 troops in Afghanistan; he added 4K. We are now putting bases in Syria and engaging Syrian government forces. We have also greatly expanded the authorities and the number of bombs dropping in Somilia and Yeman. Whereas Obama was slowly pulling US troops out of conflict, this is a major reveal and should be covered.Casprings (talk) 13:22, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Have you covered it in the relevant articles first? Please do that and get consensus there, then perhaps come back here and add something to the body, get consensus for that, and finally it will be time to argue whether it's lede-worthy for this bio. — JFG ^talk 15:58, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

@Casprings: Many thanks for the data. You appear to be saying that the 2017 Trump troop increase (43%) is about a third as large as the 2009 Obama troop increase (113%). And your "simple google news search of the words "Yemen Afghanistan Somalia Trump"" must have shown you that the article is giving that aspect of his life too much weight. (Compare with a news search of the words "Donald Trump".) WP:BALASP policy requires that we tag that sentence for POV and then remove it. --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:10, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Casprings, if you think that Trump's war policy marks a shift from Obama, then you need a source that says that. Setting out facts to prove the shift is implict synthesis. Your first source, the WaPo says that Trump is making the same mistakes as his predecessors. TFD (talk) 04:14, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

'US war efforts' material is parked here

This material has been removed from the lead per NPOV (§ PROPORTION) and parked here for further discussion.

U.S. war efforts expanded in Afghanistan, Syria, and Yemen.

Sources

How conspicuous is this aspect of Trump's life in the global body of high-quality source material about him? --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:44, 25 June 2017 (UTC) 05:20, 25 June 2017 (UTC) 16:14, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

"Protests" sentence in the lede

We have had numerous changes and even a bit of edit warring over the sentence about protests in the final paragraph of the lede. That paragraph, as inserted by User:‪Power~enwiki‬, contained this sentence:

• Version A: Both his inauguration and certain policies, such as the travel ban, produced large protests throughout the United States.

User:JFG replaced that (edit summary Copyedit on protests; inauguration was already linked above, and protests started on election day) with

• Version B: Trump's election and certain policies were opposed in numerous protests.

I replaced it (edit summary Replacing passive-voice, vague sentence with clearer, active-voice sentence) with

• Version C: There were numerous protests, both in the United States and worldwide, against his election and some of his policies.

JFG then replaced that (edit summary Shorten bit on protests; linked article has all details) with

• Version D (currently in the article): Multiple protests stemmed from his election and some of his policies.
• Version E: His election and some of his policies sparked numerous protests.

Can we get a choice among these four versions, and not make any more changes until we reach consensus? I actually prefer the original version A (but saying "election" instead of "inauguration", and possibly "provoked" instead of "produced"). Second choice would be my own version C. I don't like version B as passive voice, and I thought "opposed in protests" was an odd way to put it. Version D seems to me like a watered down statement that could be made about any president; also, to me "stemmed from" is an odd idiom to use here; it kind of suggests that the protests were a normal or even an intended result of his election and policies. BTW our text in the article says "His election sparked" numerous protests, and I would be OK with that approach as well. --MelanieN (talk) 17:20, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

This is the lede section, we must keep things short, while conveying that protests were out of the ordinary for an elected US president. I don't see any other president's lede section talking about protests, so the mere fact that we mention them here is exceptional. Further qualifying them as "in the U.S. and worldwide" is unnecessary. I absolutely oppose "provoked", which would make it sound as if Trump wanted protests and deliberately induced them, I don't think we can reasonably say that. Trump was rather annoyed at the ongoing protests during the transition, before he was even in office, and asked a few times when people would finally accept that the election was over. I would agree to use "sparked", I think that was in one of the drafts but got changed along the way. Adding version E accordingly, with "numerous" to emphasize the magnitude of the protests. — JFG ^talk 17:34, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

RE "We must keep thing short":I'm not aware any policy that says a sentence in the lede cannot be 18 or 19 words; it must be 10 words. In fact, if this sentence is trimmed to 10 words it may well become the shortest sentence in the lede. --MelanieN (talk) 18:21, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: I wasn't implying that any policy dictates sentence length; I was just referring to the relative weight of this event compared to the rest of the lede and to Trump's life overall. — JFG ^talk 19:55, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

• Version F: His election and policies sparked numerous protests.

No need to qualify "policies". -- Scjessey (talk) 18:05, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

• Abstain I picked that wording somewhat arbitrarily, any of the choices here are fine with consensus. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:23, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support F – Shortest and to the point. — JFG ^talk 19:54, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support F – Short and avoids the word were which suggests protests have ended, which we don’t know. Objective3000 (talk) 20:26, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
• Remove all. We already say that he has caused a lot of controversies, so there's no need to add that he caused protests, disputes, disgruntlement, fisticuffs, threats, et cetera. Especially since we don't mention supportive rallies in the lead. We can wikilink "controversial" to the protest article. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:47, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

No, that would create an WP:EASTEREGG. — JFG ^talk 13:33, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support F - It's clear and concise—exactly the kind of writing we need in the lead.- MrX 13:19, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support F. Prose-wise, "His election and policies provoked numerous protests" would beat "...sparked numerous protests", which sounds like headline language. Nonetheless it's a much-needed improvement. --Dervorguilla (talk) 19:23, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

'Protests' material is parked here

This sentence, "Multiple protests stemmed from his election and some of his policies," leads to the contrary statement, "Protests against Donald Trump ... have occurred ... since Donald Trump's entry into the 2016 presidential campaign." Let's get it out of the article now (per BLP) and park it here till we come up with a version that's less misleading. --Dervorguilla (talk) 23:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC) 06:08, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

This material has been removed from the lead per NPOV, § PROPORTION, and parked here for further discussion.

Multiple protests stemmed from his election and some of his policies.

The "protests" link leads to the statement, "Protests against Donald Trump ... have occurred ... since Donald Trump's entry into the 2016 presidential campaign." That article takes into account, for example, the 2017 Women's March rallies, which largely stemmed from his "statements ... and positions" that were regarded as offensive to women. --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:48, 25 June 2017 (UTC) 06:06, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

One, that should be in lede. Not sure why that was removed.Casprings (talk) 13:09, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@Casprings: The piped WP:TALK guideline mentions that the Talk page can be used to temporarily park material that you remove from the article "due to verification or other concerns". As noted by MelanieN, at least one editor's concerns were so significant that they took it upon themselves to change the consensus material unilaterally.

I likewise have pressing concerns. In particular, NPOV § PROPORTION policy requires us to give the "Protests" aspect of the subject's life no more weight than the "body of published reliable material" on the subject gives it.

Two reasonable assumptions: (A) The total weight of published material about the "Multiple protests [that] stemmed from his election and some of his policies" has grown since our last consensus. (B) The total aggregate weight of all published material about Trump has too. If both are growing exponentially, we can expect the fraction A(t)/B(t) to have decreased since that time.

As it would appear to have done. None of us here dispute the judgment of all mainstream RS that the magnitude of the last five months' protests has yet to approach the magnitude of the January 2017 Women's March. Moreover, the weekly volume of coverage of Trump-related protests also seems to have fallen markedly from that peak. It is unreasonable to expect that our last consensus wording would still meet the minimum policy requirements set out at NPOV (PROPORTION). --Dervorguilla (talk) 21:37, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Lede Updated

There's a clear consensus for point F and I've added it. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:56, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Should "current consensus, item 7" of lede be updated - or not?

FWIW - Should "current consensus, item 7" of lede be updated - or not? (see text copied below):

Present text (present lede, "current consensus, item 7"):

"His campaign received extensive free media coverage; many of his public statements were controversial or false."

New proposed text-1:

"His campaign received extensive free media coverage; many of his public statements during the campaign, and later, have been controversial or false."

New proposed text-2: (added - Drbogdan (talk) 14:30, 25 June 2017 (UTC)) (per User:Neutrality & User:MrX)

"His campaign received extensive free media coverage; many of his public statements during the campaign, and during his presidency, have been controversial or false."

New proposed text-3: (added - Drbogdan (talk) 14:42, 25 June 2017 (UTC))

"His campaign received extensive free media coverage; many of his public statements during the campaign and his presidency have been controversial or false."

New proposed text-4: (added - Drbogdan (talk) 15:44, 25 June 2017 (UTC)) (per User:Casprings)

"His campaign received extensive free media coverage; many of his public statements are controversial or false."

New proposed text-5: (added - Drbogdan (talk) 15:49, 25 June 2017 (UTC))

"His campaign received extensive free media coverage; many of his public statements have been controversial or false."

New proposed text-6: (added - Casprings (talk) 16:10, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

"Many of his public statements have been controversial or false." (Move to first paragraph and break link to his campaign)

Sources

In any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:50, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, we should update to include the language "and later" or "and during his presidency." I would not cite to David Leonhardt's column; rather; cite to non-opinion sources, e.g., NYT; Washington Post; Associated Press. Neutrality^talk 04:39, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
• Not yet. He reportedly had to pay $25 million for his controversial or false public statements about Trump University before the campaign. His statements during it earned him $2 billion in media coverage. Where are sources that say his controversial or false statements after it have some financial significance (rather than journalistic "gotcha" significance) to him or the financial markets? --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:25, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

• We should revisit the term "free." It is not clear what it means and if we use it we should explain it. The implication is that news media normally bill candidates for the stories they write about them. TFD (talk) 11:48, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
• Yes (6, or 3 as a close second choice) - Update per Neutrality. I slightly favor "and during his presidency" as being more precise.- MrX 13:17, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@MrX: Note that the article you're linking to says "controversies". Both during and after the 2016 campaign, his false campaign statements were a logical subset of his controversial ("controversy-arousing") statements. Every false statement he made aroused controversy. No mainstream source uses language that suggests otherwise. --Dervorguilla (talk) 19:12, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

• No – The proposed extension is POV and poor grammar. — JFG ^talk 13:35, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Can you elaborate? It seems to be grammatical to me, although the flow is bit rough. I don't understand how its "POV". The fact that Trump makes false statements all the time continues to be widely reported. In fact, some sources have started calling them what they are: Lies.[12][13] - MrX 13:43, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Sure. During the campaign, Trump's litany of hyperbole, insinuations and outright lies was regularly documented and denounced by fact-checkers, media pundits, political opponents and even his own allies; it became a central theme of the election ("can we trust this guy with the nuclear button?" comes to mind). Since he is in office, we have not seen any exceptional level of coverage about his lies and exaggerations. We have seen opposition to his policies, such as The Wall™, the travel ban and AHCA, but little criticism of his lying about them, rather criticism of him attempting to do what he said. Lots of criticism of Sean Spicer, though… and the ongoing soap opera about Russia. — JFG ^talk 13:54, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@MrX and JFG: It's like saying "apples or red fruits" (rather than "apples or oranges"). In the current context, "false statements" is a logical subset of "controversial statements" -- statements "subject to controversy; relating to or arousing controversy". During or after his campaign, did Trump make many significant false statements that did not ultimately arouse significant controversy? More to the point: Have many mainstream sources said so? --Dervorguilla (talk) 18:34, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@Dervorguilla: Not exactly." Controversial statements" is also a logical subset of "false statements". There are actually three categories: (1) controversial statements that are also false; (2) controversial statements that are not false; and (3) false statements that are not controversial. No doubt the third category is very small indeed.- MrX 19:17, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@MrX: Would you be good with the phrasing? "His controversial campaign statements, many of them false..." --Dervorguilla (talk) 19:31, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

No, I would not.- MrX 19:35, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@MrX: Reason, please? --Dervorguilla (talk) 21:53, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@Dervorguilla: Because it's not an accurate summary of his incessant falsehoods. See the discussion below.- MrX 22:31, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@MrX: Could you point to the particular statement there that in your view is the most persuasive? --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:44, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure that I'm following you. My comment below was persuaded by reading sources. As you can see, several other editors agree that Trump's false statements have been an ongoing phenomenon. Neutrality makes a particularly strong case, with sources.- MrX 23:20, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

• 3 per Neutrality's sources and others like them. They are enough for us to include 3 words to say, in effect, that the leopard did not suddenly change his spots on November 8; we don't need a continuous daily drone on the subject. His tortured relationship with the truth before he was a candidate is well documented too, by the way, so there's no reason to assume that he did it only to get elected. Also note that we are saying "controversial or false"; is there any significant dispute that many of his statements while president have been controversial? ―Mandruss ☎ 15:19, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

• Yes it should be updated The text of the currently ties false statements to the campaign. This is not correct as his statements clearly continue to to his Presidency. We should move the sentence to the first paragraph and simply say, Many of his public statements are controversial or false. Full stop and no need to tie it to any period of his life.Casprings (talk) 15:34, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

We should write from a historical perspective. Present tense tends to sound more like a news report than an encyclopedia biography. Also, we should allow for the possibility that he could start being truthful at some point.- MrX 15:54, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. Make the sentence past tense. That said, there is no reason to tie it to the Campaign. Sentence should still be moved to first paragraph.Casprings (talk) 16:05, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done. - I generally agree that the statement can stand on its own.- MrX 18:08, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - Deja vu all over again. Five options for change plus no change virtually guarantees no consensus without multiple rounds. Plan for that. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:58, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Just like the election! No consensus winner there, either. --Dervorguilla (talk) 18:43, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

• No. The current version was added after a very brief conversation between two people. It was never put to discussion or consensus, whereas the existing "consensus" statement was based on long discussion among many people with consensus reached. --MelanieN (talk) 18:35, 25 June 2017 (UTC) rethinking, looking at history a little more

(edit conflict) There are already more participants in this survey than the one in April. Do you object to updating this so that it is clear that Trump's false and controversial statements are ongoing?- MrX 18:46, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: How's this for compromise language? "His controversial campaign statements, many of them false, earned him an estimated $X billion in free media coverage." --Dervorguilla (talk) 18:49, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

OK, look.. Consensus #7 says "Many of his public statements were controversial or false." That wording was the product of several formal discussions with consensus reached. IMO it cannot be materially changed without discussion and consensus, although it could be tweaked, after discussion, with minor changes like verb tense.

The recent changes and discussions were launched after a change in how to relate that statement with his free media coverage. That issue is not part of consensus #7. It has not been discussed before so there is no prior consensus. The new sentence "His campaign received extensive free media coverage", was inserted by two people after brief discussion, but there does not appear to be significant objection to it and IMO it is not part of this discussion.

So the question is, are we going to change the agreed-upon wording in consensus #7, "Many of his public statements were controversial or false", and if so, how. Until we settle that question, that sentence should not be changed, either at consensus #7 OR IN THE ARTICLE, unless and until a new consensus is reached. The sentence in the article has an invisible comment saying not to change it, and I am disappointed in the people who took it upon themselves to ignore that comment and unilaterally change it. That needs to stop.

IMO we need a two-stage discussion. First part, a yes-or-no question: "Do we still accept the current consensus, "Many of his public statements were controversial or false"? No proposals for alternate wording, just "does this wording still have consensus, or are we in agreement that it needs to be changed?" If the answer there is yes, THEN we can start throwing around proposals to change it. Let's not waste our time with "how about this wording?" "how about that wording?" until we get agreement to change it at all. --MelanieN (talk) 19:13, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the current consensus wording should remain in effect until a new consensus is reached. I think there needs to be a discussion (this one) to narrow the options, then then we can submit it to a formal RfC to see if it has broader consensus.- MrX 19:41, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussion, phase one: do we want to change it?

Are we in agreement that the current consensus-approved sentence, "Many of his public statements were controversial or false," needs to be changed or modified, or should we keep it as agreed upon in several previous (but months-ago) discussions? Please answer with: "keep as is", "minor modification" (e.g. verb tense), or "significant modification" such as the additions proposed above. Let's get this settled before we move on. Thank you. --MelanieN (talk) 19:18, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

• Keep as is – Concise and correct, reflecting an exceptionally acrimonious campaign. While Trump may continue to make questionable statements occasionally, we are nowhere near the situation that prevailed in campaign days. — JFG ^talk 19:40, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
• Significant modification - It's outdated. The original consensus was reached nine months ago, when the scope of Trump's falsehoods was obviously limited to the campaign. Now, six months into the presidency, the falsehoods continue to flow, and major news sources are even becoming comfortable calling them what they are: lies. At this point, I think the falsehoods statement should stand independent of the campaign, and we should use a tense that conveys that it is an ongoing phenomenon.- MrX 19:47, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
• Significant modification - FWIW - *entirely* agree with the comments (very well presented imo) made above by User:MrX - hope this helps in some way - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:22, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
• Significant modification. Only "many of his public statements were controversial.", nothing more. What do you know about right or false? What some of the contributors above have said, is visibly their POV, almost propaganda, and cannot be accepted. Consensus reached now by five users? This is simply unacceptable. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 20:36, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
• Significant modification per Mr.X.Casprings (talk) 20:39, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
• Significant modification to update this per MrX and my comment in the section above - this clearly needs to be updated by adding a few words to indicate that the unprecedented stream of falsehoods continued into his presidency. Neutrality^talk 21:39, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
• Significant modification. Example: "His controversial statements, many of them false, continue to earn [or garner] him an unprecedented volume of free media coverage." (This language is meant to incorporate Neutrality's justified concerns.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:05, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
• Significant modification though I'm not a fan of any of the proposals above. The False and Controversial Statements part needs to be updated to reflect the presidency, since the false statements have not stopped. And the free media coverage either needs to be linked to the false statements or moved to a different sentence, because the semicolon is clumsy. A couple suggestions: His campaign and later his presidency received extensive free media coverage due in part to an unprecedented number of controversial or false statements. or During his campaign and presidency he made an unprecedented number of controversial or false statements, earning him extensive media coverage. Something like Dervorguilla's suggestion above would work as well: His controversial statements, many of them false, drew extensive media coverage of his campaign and presidency. If you decide that the sourcing isn't strong enough to link controversial statements to earned media, you might consider mentioning tweets and interviews in the controversial statements sentence. ~Awilley (talk) 23:28, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
• Significant modification per MrX. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:48, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

A small sampling of sources supporting an update

To JFG: it is simply not true that Trump's falsehoods as president were limited to "questionable statements occasionally." To the contrary, the reliable sources unanimously describe Trump's public statements as unprecedented in volume and frequency. See, e.g.:

• Linda Qiu, Fact-Checking President Trump Through His First 100 Days, New York Times (April 29, 2017): "In his first 100 days in office, President Trump has falsely boasted of attracting the largest inaugural crowd ever, cited a nonexistent terrorist attack in Sweden and leveled an unproved accusation that his predecessor spied on him. While these inaccuracies have commanded much attention, there has been a steady stream of falsehoods. The Times has logged at least one false or misleading claim per day on 91 of his first 99 days (Saturday is Day 100). On five days, Mr. Trump went golfing, and on two he made limited public statements."
• Glenn Kessler & Michelle Ye Hee, President Trump’s first 100 days: The fact check tally, Washington Post (May 1, 2017): "President Trump is the most fact-challenged politician that The Fact Checker has ever encountered. ... the pace and volume of the president’s misstatements means that we cannot possibly keep up. The president’s speeches and interviews are so chock full of false and misleading claims that The Fact Checker often must resort to roundups that offer a brief summary of the facts that the president has gotten wrong. So here are the numbers for the president’s first 100 days.... 492: The number of false or misleading claims made by the president. That’s an average of 4.9 claims a day."
• Linda Qiu, In One Rally, 12 Inaccurate Claims From Trump, New York Times (June 22, 2017): "President Trump returned to familiar rhetorical territory during a raucous campaign-style rally in Iowa on Wednesday night, repeating exaggerations and falsehoods about health care, jobs, taxes, foreign policy and his own record."
• Mark Landler & Maggie Haberman, Trump Says He Did Not Tape Comey Conversations, New York Times (June 22, 2017): "the tweets essentially confirmed that Mr. Trump had been leveling a baseless threat...For Mr. Trump the businessman, who used guile and misdirection in countless real estate negotiations, the episode may have been a classic case of a bluff he then had no choice but to call. But for Mr. Trump the president, it could have consequences."

--Neutrality^talk 21:48, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@Neutrality: Could you add some of this information to the body? Then we can go ahead with making our decision about changing the lead. --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:14, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Anyone have suggested wording? Neutrality^talk 22:15, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@Neutrality: My first thought is to adjust the organization of the Presidency section so that our 'expanded version' (two sentences?) would fit in logically somewhere. (On second thought, we could do both at once.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:46, 25 June 2017 (UTC) 22:46, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Trump lies. Why can we not simply say that and give that fact the WP:WEIGHT required?

I wanted to have a conversation about simply stating that Trump lies. I think the multiple falsehoods that Trump continues to speak warrants that simple statement. With that, I wanted to discuss a few other aspects, such as the WP:WEIGHT. As such, I propose the following for the first paragraph:

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. Many of his public statements have been controversial and lies.

1. I am not sure why the connection with earned media is particually noteworthy. He did get a lot of earned media but I am not sure that it is that backed up that his falsehoods were the major driver (he is also a very unique public speaker) or that this was that important. It seems more important that he keeps telling falsehoods as the the President of the United States. In fact, now that he is POTUS, he will continue to get media coverage and his earned media coverage becomes less and less important as we move away from the campaign. 2. This basic fact seems relevant enough to be in the opening paragraph. At this point, this is just as noteworthy as him being a television personality. The fact that it is well document that that President of the United States continues to lie seems pretty important to me. 3. Multiple sources call these lies. These are plainly lies. Per Wikipedia:CENSOR, we should just say that. Moreover, we should not be afraid to say that in the opening paragraph, if that is warranted. Casprings (talk) 02:01, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

A different suggestion. "He made many false statements on social media during his campaign and presidency." Power~enwiki (talk) 02:07, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

@Casprings: This topic is being discussed in the subsection above. You're welcome to suggest improvements there. Discussions about lead POV are currently on hold per "Lead follows body". --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:54, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

It is under discussion and the majority of editors seems favor change towards this direction.Casprings (talk) 04:09, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any majority supporting the word "lies". His pattern of falsehoods could arise from a number of things besides a deliberate intent to deceive, including certain cognitive disorders, delusional tendencies, even extreme carelessness or mental laziness. I think most of the sources using that inflammatory word are in fact doing so with political motivation, as they can't see into his mind any more than I can. As I understand it, WP:V policy requires RS for inclusion, but presence of RS does not require inclusion. (WP:CENSOR, by the way, has absolutely no bearing on this question.) ―Mandruss ☎ 05:04, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry. "False" is acceptable. "Lie" is not. Period. The reason, if it isn't already obvious: "lie" means deliberately saying something that they know is false, with an intent to deceive; it's a direct accusation against the person. "False" means saying something that isn't true, for whatever reason - which can include believing that what they say is true, through ignorance or being misinformed. --MelanieN (talk) 05:12, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Mandruss and User:MelanieN: Intent can be assumed with evidence. More importantly for wikipedia, intent is being assumed by a number of WP:RSes in their commentary.

• NYT: Trump's Lies
• Quick takes on 'Gov. Junk,' Trump's odd lies and more
• US News And World Report: 7 Takeaways From Comey's Testimony: Trump lies and is still in legal and political trouble. Sessions is, too, and the GOP is no help.

When WP:RS start using the term, we should consider it. More importantly, we should not be scarred to use a word when the other explanations are unlikely and him being simply a liar is the most likely and obvious.Casprings (talk) 11:20, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

@Casprings: The article body gives "2016 Presidential Campaign" a topic weight of 0.25, "Business Career" a topic weight of 0.24, "Family & Personal Life" a topic weight of 0.13, and "Campaign Rhetoric" (false statements) a subtopic weight of 0.015. See "Donald Trump site:www.economist.com" and "Donald Trump site:www.bbc.com" (and Donald Trump site:www.wsj.com) for an indication of subtopic weights in the body of high-quality sources worldwide. --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:16, 26 June 2017 (UTC) 06:23, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

@Casprings: From David Leonhardt and Stuart Thompson, "President Trump’s Lies, the Definitive List", New York Times, June 23, 2017. "Correction: June 23, 2017. An earlier version of this graphic included an incorrect total for the number of days Donald Trump told a lie during his first two months as president. It was 20, not 25." --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:57, 26 June 2017 (UTC)