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 Superseded by #15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 (Nov 2016, Dec 2016) (Superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)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 Superseded by #35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 (Sep 2016, February 2017, wording shortened per April 2017, upheld with July 2018) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019)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 Superseded by #17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)

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. Do not add web archives to cited sources which 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. (October 2021)

54. Include in the lead that, quote, Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in U.S. history. (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)

Lede Section Rewrite

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I think the lede section needs updating. Here is my logic.

1. Lets take away some of the language that isn't historically significant. I got it, he beat 14 other GOPers. However, that isn't really that important and shouldn't be in the lede. 2. If we are going to mention the election, which we should, we have to mention Russian interference and the follow-on investigations. This is the event that seems to have the most important historical significance. 3. We should add significant policy achievements when and if they happen. While not in the suggested text become, if Trump were to sign the American Health Care Act, that should be in the lede. However, at this point he hasn't had any "historic" policy achievements but we should come to consensus that they should be added when/if they happen.

With that in mind, here is my suggestion.

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.

Trump was born and raised in Queens, New York City, and earned an economics degree from the Wharton School. Later, he took charge of The Trump Organization, the real estate and construction firm founded by his paternal grandmother, which he ran for 45 years until 2016. During his real estate career, Trump built, renovated, and managed numerous office towers, hotels, casinos, and golf courses. Besides real estate, he started several side ventures and has licensed the use of his name for the branding of various products and properties. He produced and hosted The Apprentice, a reality television series on NBC, from 2004 to 2015. His net worth was estimated to be $3.5 billion as of 2017, making him the 544th richest person in the world.

In June 2015, he launched his campaign for the 2016 presidential election and was formally nominated at the Republican National Convention along with Indiana governor Mike Pence as his running mate. Many of his campaign statements were controversial or false, generating much free media coverage. His political positions have been described by scholars and commentators as populist, protectionist, and nationalist.

Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, in a surprise victory against Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton and commenced his presidency on January 20, 2017. He became the oldest and wealthiest person ever to assume the presidency, the first without prior military or government service, and the fifth to have won the election while losing the popular vote. During the election, Russia interfered to support his campaign. After the election, an FBI investigation into the Russian interference expanded to include whether any of Trump's associates colluded with the Russians. Trump fired FBI Director James Comey, and a special counsel was then appointed to look into all Russia-related issues including possible obstruction of justice.

This is just to start a conversation, but I think we should start to reword the lede.Casprings (talk) 17:39, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree with #1, disagree with #2. It's premature to conclude that Russian interference has most important historical significance. The reality is that we don't know whether it had any significant impact on the outcome of the election. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:43, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

• • Foreign interference in an election to the degree Russia interfered is not normal and highly significant. It is unlikely we will know the impact because they used bots to inference news streams, release of negative information on Clinton and other techniques that make it impossible to measure the actual impact. That said, the degree of effort from Russia makes it clearly historically significant.Casprings (talk) 17:52, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
    • If they tried and failed, then it's not that historically significant. It's more like trivia. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:40, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
      • Well, 1. The person they wanted to be elected was. 2. They had significant influence on the information environment with bots, release of Clinton's emails, etc. That makes it pretty clear they did not fail.Casprings (talk) 18:46, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
        • 1. Correlation does not imply causation 2. Assumes facts not in evidence. The hacked e-mails received some, but not a lot of coverage prior to the election. Ditto for the bots. I forget who said it (FBI? NSA?), but they said they have no evidence Russia's efforts changed a single vote. Let's stick with what we know. We know they tried to influence the election. We have no evidence they were successful in changing the outcome. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:12, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
          • There is uncertainty over the effects. However, uncertainty is not the same as "no evidence" that they were effective. Moreover, given the investigations into both Trump and his Campaign that followed the election, one wonders how this is not historically significant whatever the actual effects.Casprings (talk) 19:23, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
            • We will never know if the intervention succeeded or not. Maybe the release of hacked emails was determinative; maybe it wasn't; the election was so close that a few tens of thousands of votes could have made it go the other way; we will never know. It doesn't matter. The Russian interference was unprecedented and it will be one of the main things his election is remembered for. --MelanieN (talk) 21:54, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
              • Actually, we do have evidence that it wasn't the Russians that swung the election to Trump, it was something else: Understanding the undecided voters. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:15, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
                • There are thousands of op-eds like this. They all think they know why the election went the way it did. None of them amount to evidence. --MelanieN (talk) 03:33, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
                  • There are thousands of op-eds from Clinton staffers who were hired to scientifically track undecided voters? Can you cite some examples, please? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:37, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
                  • And actually, this is evidence - hard evidence. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:38, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Support as long as the following is deleted: ", and an investigation into rather Trump committed obstruction of justice." -SusanLesch (talk) 18:23, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Weak Support after reading the proposal, I agree the "Trump presidential campaign" part of the lede can be reduced. I disagree with the inclusion of "During the election, Russia interfered to support his campaign. After the election, an investigation into his campaign's collision with Russian interference resulted in his firing of the FBI James Comey, the appointment of a special prosecutor Robert Mueller, and an investigation into rather Trump committed obstruction of justice." The most notable thing from his presidency so far is either (a) his failure on health-care; (b) his failure on the travel ban; or (c) appointing Gorsuch. Both (a) and (b) may be temporary, and (c) is WP:MILL for presidents. The 2017 Qatar diplomatic crisis isn't provably related to him either. I don't see a single thing from his presidency that compares to the material in the lede for Bill Clinton or George W. Bush's articles. A general statement along the lines of "Trump pursued a foreign policy friendlier to autocratic states like Russia and Saudi Arabia" would be fine with me if there's an NPOV way of saying it. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:44, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

It`s spelled lead — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BD95:45F0:39:DE59:2CE5:42E4 (talk) 21:05, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

It's spelled either lede or lead. General Ization ^Talk 21:12, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Overall pretty good. I do agree with including the Russian interference; it has dominated his life for months. But the final paragraph needs a lot of work.

• move the "oldest, wealthiest" sentence to second position, right after his inauguration.
• "his campaign's collision collusion": this assumes that collusion exists, which has not been proven.
• "an investigation into rather whether Trump committed obstruction of justice" - I'm not sure this is ready for inclusion in the lede, it is newly reported and there is not much meat to the story at this point.
  • Done. One point 2, it says it is an investigation into it. It doesn't say it is a fact.Casprings (talk) 22:07, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

How about this: "During the election, Russia interfered to support his campaign. After the election, an FBI investigation into the Russian interference expanded to include whether any of Trump's associates colluded with the Russians. Trump fired FBI Director James Comey, and a special counsel was then appointed to look into all Russia-related issues including possible obstruction of justice. (Optionally omit the last phrase depending on consensus) --MelanieN (talk) 21:48, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

• Thats good. Added.Casprings (talk) 22:08, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

How about "In May 2017, Trump fired FBI Director James Comey, and a special counsel was appointed to look into possible obstruction of justice." Power~enwiki (talk) 01:21, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

MelanieN wording is more accurate. He was appointed to look at Russia and anything that came out of that.Casprings (talk) 01:48, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

More accurate is less important than shorter in the lede, as long as there's nothing inaccurate. I'm fine with including the obstruction of justice investigation, but mentioning Russia three times is excessive. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:51, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Well there is less accurate and there is incorrect. He simply was not appointed to look into obstruction of justice and the statement you wrote seems to indicates that was the reason he was appointed.Casprings (talk) 02:22, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

If you have to use the word "Russia" three times to describe it, it shouldn't be in the lede. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:26, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Why? Russia seems pretty relevant here and Trump's connections seem historic to me (And WP:RSes).Casprings (talk) 02:29, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Casprings, thanks for this initiative. I agree that the section on the campaign can be shortened and we should include some description of Trump's first few months in office. However, we can't speak only about the Russia controversy; we need to describe some of his actual government policies and actions. Here's a list of the salient events since Trump took office (links to first 100 days and timeline):

• Surprise victory (we already say so), massive protests in reaction to election
• Many businesspeople appointed to Cabinet, resistance to some nominations, Neil Gorsuch in the Supreme Court
• Domestic policy: promoting local industry (Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines, coal mines), reducing government spending (hiring freeze, 2018 budget cuts), health care reform passed House, not Senate
• Environment: withdrawal from the Paris Agreement
• Immigration: stalled travel bans (EO 13769 and 13780), stronger border enforcement, Mexico wall not started yet
• Foreign policy: have NATO allies pay more for defense, speech to Muslim leaders against islamists, arms deal with Saudi Arabia, military strikes in Syria and Afghanistan
• Investigations into Russian election interference and potential campaign collusion, dismissal of James Comey, special counsel
• "Drain the swamp" rhetoric, conflict with intelligence agencies, politicians from both sides, media

We should have a short sentence on each of these events. Anything I missed? Anything undue? — JFG ^talk 10:09, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

The proposed new text is certainly a lot better than the current one. I agree that the Russian election interference, the firing of the FBI director, the appointment of special counsel, the withdrawal from the Paris Agreement and the Muslim Ban (at the very least) need to be included. --Tataral (talk) 10:16, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

• I think you are right. Maybe take out the second paragraph and develop a paragraph on policy?Casprings (talk) 11:17, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I think ideally we should have
    1. a brief first paragraph summarizing the key points (the current paragraph "is the 45th and current President of the United States. Before entering politics, he was a businessman and television personality")
    2. a paragraph on his career/activities before he became President
    3. (for now) a paragraph on his presidential campaigns, ending with the 2016 election result
    4. a paragraph on his presidency, including his policies and other actions as President (Muslim ban and climate change), and the other most significant controversies (Russia, FBI/obstruction of justice etc.)
  • At a future point in time, it would possibly make sense to merge/shorten/condense paragraphs 2 and 3 into one to make room for an additional paragraph relating to his presidency (similar to the Barack Obama article). --Tataral (talk) 14:26, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

@Tataral: Please see my revised proposal below, which matches your proposed structure. The first three paragraphs should be relatively easy to agree upon; writing the fourth one, #Coverage of the early presidency, is the larger challenge. Comments welcome there. — JFG ^talk 05:30, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

The new poposal looks good, however the word Russia used three times is too much. Moreover , I would include the current information of "Trump first publicly expressed interest in running for political office in 1987. He won two Reform Party presidential primaries in 2000, but withdrew his candidacy early on." and his changing party memberships od D, R, I and Ref.--Joobo (talk) 11:07, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Why is that more important then his policy positions? I would exclude that, actually?Casprings (talk) 11:17, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

That would be too much detail, however we can't give the impression that he suddenly dropped into politics in 2015 out of nowhere, especially as the article has a lot of material about Trump's earlier political dabblings. Perhaps simply start this paragraph with "Trump had expressed interest in politics since 1987, and he entered the presidential race in June 2015." Also, I think we should keep a few words about his unlikely victory in the primaries. Perhaps don't mention the Republican convention and say "Trump defeated a wide field of 16 Republican politicians in the primaries, and picked Indiana governor Mike Pence as his running mate." — JFG ^talk 11:57, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree with JFG now.--Joobo (talk) 19:22, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. Most sources don't mention his 2000 Presidential run (and it's questionable whether it can be described as a serious campaign); it was never seriously mentioned in the context of his 2016 Presidential run. Expressing interest in politics in 1987 is also a useful detail for the article, but synthesis in the lede; it implies that his actions from 1988-2015 were in the context of a future presidential run, and that's not supported by sources. I feel it sufficient to note that he entered the 2016 race with no additional details. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:33, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Mentioning his early public interest in politics does not imply "that his actions from 1988-2015 were in the context of a future presidential run". If we omit that entirely, we don't fairly represent the article contents, which go into much detail about Trump's on-and-off presidential ambitions and political commentary. If you have a better way to phrase it, go ahead; perhaps remove the exact date, but it would be just wrong to jump directly to his 2015 announcement. — JFG ^talk 21:25, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

• Suggestion: After the 2016 election outcome, remove "and commenced his presidency on January 20, 2017", because it's obvious. If we really want to mention his start date, add it to the lead sentence: "Donald John Trump is the 45th and current President of the United States, in office since January 20, 2017." — JFG ^talk 12:02, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

• Comment this seems to be more or less agreed-upon, except for the Russia bit. If you insist on using the word "Russia" (or Russians) more than once to the lede, I'm going to demand a full and separate RFC before any discussion of Russia is added to the lede. If you can describe it using the word "Russia" only once, whatever you do is fine with me. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:23, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I think that is an unreasonable position. Russian interference, investigation into possible collusion, some of his closest aides having to leave because of Russia issues, a special counsel looking at all things Russian - these have been the dominant themes of his coverage by Reliable Sources throughout the first six months of his presidency. Those things have GOT to be in the lede, and I can see no justification for an arbitrary requirement to omit or limit the word "Russia" from that coverage. --MelanieN (talk) 14:40, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

We seem to have rough consensus on what to trim from the current lead, and on the need to add material covering the first few months of the presidency. We could proceed with the trimming immediately, and separately shape a proposal for the new covfefe coverage. Accordingly, I will open two discussions below. — JFG ^talk 21:19, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Break

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.

Trump was born in Queens, New York City and earned an economics degree from the Wharton School. He ran The Trump Organization, a real estate and construction firm, for 45 years until 2016. He also started several side ventures and licensed the use of his name for the branding of various products and properties. He produced and hosted The Apprentice, a reality television series on NBC, from 2004 to 2015. His net worth was estimated to be $3.5 billion as of 2017, making him the 544th richest person in the world.

He ran for U.S. President in 2016 and won in a surprise victory against Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton. Many of his campaign statements were controversial or false, generating much free media coverage. Commentators describe his political positions as populist, protectionist, and nationalist. He became the oldest and wealthiest person ever to assume the presidency, the first without prior military or government service, and the fifth to have won the election while losing the popular vote. During the election, Russia interfered to support his campaign, sparking an FBI investigation. Trump fired FBI Director James Comey, and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed a special counsel to investigate issues involving Russia and the Trump campaign.

During the Trump Presidency, the United States started a process to withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement. The Supreme Court seated Neil Gorsuch. He attempted to impose a travel ban from several muslim majority states, but several federal courts issued a restraining orders preventing implementation and the case is awaiting review by the U.S. Supreme Court. US war efforts expanded in Afghanistan, Syria, and Yemen. Both his inauguration and certain policies, such as the travel ban, produced large protests throughout the United States.

This is what I worked on. My Thoughts.

1. Keep it short so I edited out some info I thought was of secondary importance. Also reworded to remove passive voice and use less words 2. Adds a short paragraph on his Presidency. Tried to only include what I thought was most important, but comments welcome Casprings (talk) 23:49, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

And furthermore!: (1) The US war effort in Afghanistan is not reported to have expanded yet; and it may be some time before it is so reported. (2) RT has yet to speak out more than once about expansion of the US war effort in Yemen, so it's unlikely that many mainstream sources over here have either. (3) Few if any polls have found that Trump was elected because Russia (meaning, emails). Reportedly, they've found he was elected because unemployment and unlawful immigration. Both of which have noticeably gone down since his formal election December 19. You may want to incorporate those widely reported facts into your proposal (without necessarily adding all, or any, of the many contradictory hypotheses about why they went down.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:27, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comments. 1. That is actually being reported. See Afghanistan and Yemen. If this is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, one should look towards history. I think it is likely, even if the public is not currently interested, that the expanding war efforts will be seen as historic. 3. Unemployment rate has when President Obama left was 4.7 percent and is 4.3 currently. The rate changes all the time and I don't see these as likely historic (at least at this point). Those are my thoughts, but welcome other thoughts.Casprings (talk) 01:33, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

• I think the final paragraph (presidency) is quite good. I have a problem with the final sentence of the paragraph before: "During the election, Russia interfered to support his campaign and the Trump's Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed a special counsel to investigate coordination between Russia and the Trump Campaign after Trump fired FBI Director James Comey. " It's run-on, tries to get too much into one sentence, and the non-chronological order is confusing. How about something like this: "During the election, Russia interfered to support his campaign, sparking an FBI investigation. Trump fired FBI Director James Comey, and the Trump's Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed a special counsel to investigate issues involving Russia and the Trump campaign." --MelanieN (talk) 14:52, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

• DoneCasprings (talk) 17:02, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that sentence is quite long and we don't need to name Rosenstein in the lead. What do you think of my condensed proposal below? "Frustrated by ongoing investigations into Russian election interference and potential campaign collusion, he dismissed FBI Director James Comey and faced accusations of obstructing justice." That says it all and includes 4 links to detailed articles. — JFG ^talk 16:02, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I think the special counsel is important and should be mentioned. I agree Rosenstein isn't important, but the alternative is passive voice - "a special counsel was appointed" - which isn't ideal. --MelanieN (talk) 16:10, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

• I agree to this. You don't lose anything by telling the reader who appointed him and avoiding passive voice.Casprings (talk) 17:02, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

It occurs to me that "Russia interfered" belongs in the election paragraph, but firing Comey and the special counsel belong in the presidency paragraph. How should we resolve this? --MelanieN (talk) 16:15, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion, you keep it like it is. It is logically connected.Casprings (talk) 17:03, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

The first paragraph should be brief and only summarize the key points, i.e. what he is most notable for, so we should retain the current first paragraph ("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.") and not squeeze the second paragraph with a lot of details about his education and business activities into it, which makes it far less reader-friendly. For comparison, Barack Obama's first paragraph looks like this: "Barack Hussein Obama II (US: Listeni/bəˈrɑːk huːˈseɪn oʊˈbɑːmə/ bə-RAHK hoo-SAYN oh-BAH-mə;[1][2] born August 4, 1961) is an American politician who served as the 44th President of the United States from 2009 to 2017. He is the first African American to have served as president. He previously served in the U.S. Senate representing Illinois from 2005 to 2008, and in the Illinois State Senate from 1997 to 2004." --Tataral (talk) 16:42, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

• Done.Casprings (talk) 17:02, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Merging the forked discussions

Alright, we seem to have some confusion after I opened the two threads below, intending to discuss the trimming of existing material in one thread, and the addition of new material in another. Some people followed the new threads, some others continued the discussion here. Sorry for the mess! I'll try to merge, one paragraph at a time. — JFG ^talk 18:42, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: Where, and how, are we supposed to express an opinion on these options? --MelanieN (talk) 19:40, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: For § 1, 2, 3: just below the table; for §4, in the #Coverage of the early presidency thread. — JFG ^talk 22:10, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Paragraph / Theme	Version A (Casprings thread) Version B (JFG thread) Version C (proposed merge)
§1. Who is Trump	A. 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. B. 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. C. 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.
§2. Life and career	A. Trump was born in Queens, New York City and earned an economics degree from the Wharton School. He ran The Trump Organization, a real estate and construction firm, for 45 years until 2016. He also started several side ventures and licensed the use of his name for the branding of various products and properties. He produced and hosted The Apprentice, a reality television series on NBC, from 2004 to 2015. His net worth was estimated to be $3.5 billion as of 2017, making him the 544th richest person in the world. B. Trump was born and raised in Queens, New York City, and earned an economics degree from the Wharton School. For 45 years, he managed The Trump Organization, the real estate development firm founded by his paternal grandmother. During his real estate career, Trump built, renovated, and managed numerous office towers, hotels, casinos, and golf courses. Besides real estate, he started several side ventures and licensed the use of his name for the branding of various products and properties. He produced and hosted The Apprentice, a reality television series on NBC, from 2004 to 2015. As of 2017, his net worth was estimated to be $3.5 billion, making him the 544th richest person in the world. C. Trump was born in Queens, New York City, and earned an economics degree from the Wharton School. For 45 years, he managed The Trump Organization, the real estate development firm founded by his paternal grandmother. His career focused on building or renovating office towers, hotels, casinos, and golf courses. He started several side ventures and branded various products with his name. He produced and hosted The Apprentice television show for 12 years. As of 2017, he was the 544th richest person in the world with an estimated net worth of $3.5 billion.
§3. Campaign and election	A. He ran for U.S. President in 2016 and won in a surprise victory against Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton. Many of his campaign statements were controversial or false, generating much free media coverage. Commentators describe his political positions as populist, protectionist, and nationalist. He became the oldest and wealthiest person ever to assume the presidency, the first without prior military or government service, and the fifth to have won the election while losing the popular vote. During the election, Russia interfered to support his campaign, sparking an FBI investigation. Trump fired FBI Director James Comey, and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed a special counsel to investigate issues involving Russia and the Trump campaign. B. Trump had expressed interest in politics since 1987, and he entered the presidential race in June 2015. He defeated sixteen Republican politicians in the primaries, and picked Indiana governor Mike Pence as his running mate. Many of his campaign statements were controversial or false, earning much media coverage. His political positions have been described by scholars and commentators as populist, protectionist, and nationalist. Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, in a surprise victory against Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton. He became the oldest and wealthiest person ever to assume the presidency, the first without prior military or government service, and the fifth to have won the election despite losing the popular vote. C. Trump had long expressed interest in politics; he eventually entered the 2016 presidential race as a Republican and defeated sixteen opponents in the primaries. Scholars and commentators described his political positions as populist, protectionist, and nationalist. His campaign received extensive media coverage. Many of his public statements were controversial or false. Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, in a surprise victory against Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. He became the oldest and wealthiest person ever to assume the presidency, the first without prior military or government service, and the fifth to have won the election despite losing the popular vote. Russia was accused of interfering in the election to support his candidacy. (The Comey saga should be covered in the presidency paragraph.)
§4. Presidency so far	Proposed versions A. During the Trump Presidency, the United States started a process to withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement. The Supreme Court seated Neil Gorsuch. He attempted to impose a travel ban from several muslim majority states, but several federal courts issued a restraining orders preventing implementation and the case is awaiting review by the U.S. Supreme Court. US war efforts expanded in Afghanistan, Syria, and Yemen. Both his inauguration and certain policies, such as the travel ban, produced large protests throughout the United States. B. Trump appointed a Cabinet composed of businesspeople, politicians and generals, and nominated Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. Over the first few months of his presidency, he signed dozens of executive orders, undoing several Obama policies. He withdrew the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Paris Climate Agreement, and unlocked two pipeline construction permits. He enforced stricter controls on illegal immigrants, but his proposed travel ban on citizens from seven Middle-Eastern countries was opposed by the courts. During his first foreign trip, Trump enjoined Muslim leaders to reject radical Islamists, signed an arms deal with Saudi Arabia, and asked NATO partners to increase their military spending. Trump's election and policies sparked numerous protests. Frustrated by ongoing investigations into Russian election interference and potential campaign collusion, he dismissed FBI Director James Comey and faced accusations of obstructing justice. C. Too many differences to merge yet. Please continue the discussion on §4 at #Coverage of the early presidency.

Comments on § 1, 2, 3 here; comments on §4, please in the #Coverage of the early presidency thread. — JFG ^talk 22:10, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

1. B or C. I think there is some benefit to telling the reader when he took office. 2. A. I think it covers more of the topic and removes more of the less important facts. 3. Same as 2. 4. A. It is shorter and I think those facts are historic. I think we should start with that and debate rather we add or delete anything based on a judgement or rather it is likely historic in 100 years. For his actual term, we should think about that basic standard.Casprings (talk) 20:02, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

1. B or C. 2. C. 3. C. --MelanieN (talk) 22:27, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Let's see... 4-A gets rejected per WP:BLPSTYLE and WP:BURDEN. (Multiple high-quality RS emphasize that the effort in Afghanistan hasn't expanded yet; comaparatively few that it has.) 4-B gets rejected per WP:PUBLICFIGURE. (Only a single RS has reported that he's facing official accusations of obstructing justice. The source turned out to have been wrong, but that's not so much a policy issue.)
I'll let others try their hands at 1, 2, and 3. --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:21, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

@Dervorguilla: This is the place to discuss §1–3, so your opinion would be welcome. Your remarks on §4 are duly noted at #Coverage of the early presidency. — JFG ^talk 09:25, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

1—B/C. 2—A. 3—B. That were my choices. --Joobo (talk) 13:41, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

For the record: 1. B/C, 2. C, 3. C. — JFG ^talk 14:27, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Comment. The current discussions about how to alter the first three paragraphs and also add a paragraph about his presidency seem quite unwieldy. I respect the work that went into the whole process so far, and am not suggesting for all that work to be discarded, but I do suggest just taking one paragraph at a time starting with a talk page section at the bottom of this page solely about the first paragraph, showing with Strike through and underline how each proposal would change the current paragraph, and having a survey solely about the first paragraph. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Too many discussions already. A mix of the drafts has been pushed to the article, and we hope that regular editing will help cement a better version. Any new discussion, please start a new thread based on the article's current state. Fresh start! — JFG ^talk 06:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Consensus on trimming current lead

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

As discussed above, there seems to be rough consensus to trim the current lead and add some #Coverage of the early presidency. Here is a revised proposed text, as amended by discussions above, and some extra trim/copyedit on his real estate career:

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.

Trump was born and raised in Queens, New York City, and earned an economics degree from the Wharton School. For 45 years, he managed The Trump Organization, the real estate development firm founded by his paternal grandmother. During his real estate career, Trump built, renovated, and managed numerous office towers, hotels, casinos, and golf courses. Besides real estate, he started several side ventures and licensed the use of his name for the branding of various products and properties. He produced and hosted The Apprentice, a reality television series on NBC, from 2004 to 2015. As of 2017, his net worth was estimated to be $3.5 billion, making him the 544th richest person in the world.

Trump had expressed interest in politics since 1987, and he entered the presidential race in June 2015. He defeated sixteen Republican politicians in the primaries, and picked Indiana governor Mike Pence as his running mate. Many of his campaign statements were controversial or false, earning much media coverage. His political positions have been described by scholars and commentators as populist, protectionist, and nationalist. Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, in a surprise victory against Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton. He became the oldest and wealthiest person ever to assume the presidency, the first without prior military or government service, and the fifth to have won the election despite losing the popular vote.

(Paragraph about early presidency to be added, please discuss in separate section.)

Please state your support for this part or suggest further changes. — JFG ^talk 21:19, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

A few possible improvements (with no major changes in meaning):

Donald John Trump ... is the 45th and current president of the United States... He was a businessman and television producer...

... He managed The Trump Organization, the real-estate development firm...
Trump had expressed interest in running for office since 1987... He defeated a field of 16 Republican politicians... Many of his campaign statements were controversial or false, generating much earned media coverage...

He became ... the fifth to have won election despite losing the popular vote...

--Dervorguilla (talk) 22:31, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Please move these comments to the existing section "Lede Section Rewrite" above. Let's not have THREE separate discussions about the lede going on here. --MelanieN (talk) 00:58, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

OIC. You knew about the existing discussion, you just thought you would pre-empt it by adding two subsections spelling out different proposals. Not a helpful approach IMO. --MelanieN (talk) 01:00, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: You misunderstand my intent; perhaps I didn't make it clear enough. There are two parts to the rewrite proposal: one about trimming current contents, one about adding coverage of the presidency. I thought it would be more manageable to discuss each section separately, as they are independent of each other, and the first is a simple trim, while the other requires agreeing on scope and writing entirely new material – a more complex endeavour, and a likely longer consensus process. — JFG ^talk 05:18, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Your proposal here includes elements that are under discussion above. If you actually didn't mean for them to be under discussion here, that is confusing. If you DID mean to discuss those elements here while they are under discussion above, that is disruptive, and I would say that any "consensus" that develops here is invalid. Personally I will not be commenting on your suggestions until the earlier discussion about the lede is settled. --MelanieN (talk) 14:13, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

@Dervorguilla: Thanks; I have incorporated your suggestions. I shortened the "field of candidates" further, stating just "He defeated sixteen Republican politicians": short and sticking to facts. Not sure we should specify "earned media" or "free media"; the adjective was disputed earlier. I shortened it further to "much media coverage", while keeping the link to earned media for curious readers. — JFG ^talk 05:38, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

On reflection, perhaps we could say "earning free media coverage" instead of "generating much (free/earned) media coverage". Would sound more encyclopedic too; what do you think? — JFG ^talk 05:42, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done Switched to "earning much media coverage" per discussion below. — JFG ^talk 06:43, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Note that I have disagreed, in the discussion below, and think "free" should be retained. So consensus had not necessarily been reached. Where are we supposed to discuss this? --MelanieN (talk) 16:20, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: About the exact wording of the media coverage, please continue the discussion in the dedicated section opened by Dervorguilla. We can apply the outcome here as soon as there is consensus there. — JFG ^talk 17:04, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

On another reflection, I returned the text to "expressed interest in politics since 1987" because his public statements didn't include anything about running for office until the 2000 campaign. — JFG ^talk 06:05, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Procedural note: please continue this thread at #Merging the forked discussions above. — JFG ^talk 19:27, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Coverage of the early presidency

There is consensus to add a paragraph covering the first few months of Trump's presidency. Which events should be included and how should it all be phrased? — JFG ^talk 21:19, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

First suggestion, to get the ball rolling… Picking up where we left off at election day:

…and the fifth to have won the election despite losing the popular vote, sparking numerous protests.

Trump appointed a Cabinet composed of businesspeople, politicians and generals, and nominated Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. Over the first few months of his presidency, he signed dozens of executive orders, undoing several Obama policies and promoting an "America first" agenda. He withdrew the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Paris Climate Agreement, and unlocked construction permits for the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines. He enforced stricter controls on illegal immigrants, but his proposed travel ban on citizens from seven Middle-Eastern countries was opposed by the courts, and the Mexico border wall was postponed. Trump vowed to cut regulations and reduce public spending, submitting a 2018 budget that trims several federal departments and increases the military budget. His proposed health care reform to replace Obamacare passed the House and is pending before the Senate.

During his first foreign trip, Trump enjoined Muslim leaders to reject radical Islamists, made an arms deal with Saudi Arabia and asked NATO partners to meet their own defense budget commitments. He ordered military strikes on Syria and Afghanistan. Frustrated by ongoing investigations into Russian election interference and potential campaign collusion, he dismissed FBI Director James Comey and faced accusations of obstructing justice.

Looks a bit too long, but it's a start. Comments welcome. — JFG ^talk 22:36, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I recommend rewriting the first sentence so it reads: "…and the fifth to have won election despite losing the popular vote." (1) Trump was the fifth president to so win election, not the fifth to so win the 2016 election. (2) He officially and definitively won election (in the Electoral College) some time after he lost the popular vote -- not while he was losing it. (3) The majority of the protests against Trump's victory may have been sparked by Trump's victory itself, not by his loss. (We do know that few such protests were sparked by Bush's analogous victory + loss in 2000.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 23:31, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done — JFG ^talk 05:40, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

It's a good starting point for discussion, but as you said a little too long, so we need to remove something, and it would need to fit in a single paragraph to follow the structure recommended by WP:LEAD. I will look into this in more detail later today, but just one thing now: For example, I wouldn't mention the nomination of Gorsuch. The President nominates and appoints scores of people, and it seems odd to only mention Gorsuch by name among all the people he has appointed and nominated, including people in more prominent roles (Tillerson, Sessions and other key members of his cabinet etc.) In most countries the appointment of a judge would considered a routine matter anyway, and certainly not something that should be mentioned in the lead section of the head of government's biography (mentioning it below in the body of the article is fine). --Tataral (talk) 12:16, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I would leave out most of this. The health care bill (still just a gleam in his eye), his proposed budget (meaningless in terms of actually being enacted), the wall (postponed), the extended coverage of his first foreign trip (presumably one of many he will take) - I would dump all of that from the lede. In fact here are my suggestions:

Trump appointed a Cabinet composed of businesspeople, politicians and generals, and nominated Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. Over the first few months of his presidency, he signed dozens of executive orders, undoing several Obama policies and promoting an "America first" agenda. He withdrew the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Paris Climate Agreement, and unlocked construction permits for the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines. He enforced stricter controls on illegal immigrants, but his proposed travel ban on citizens from seven Middle-Eastern countries was opposed by the courts, and the Mexico border wall was postponed. Trump vowed to cut regulations and reduce public spending, submitting a 2018 budget that trims several federal departments and increases the military budget. His proposed health care reform to replace Obamacare passed the House and is pending before the Senate.

During his first foreign trip, Trump enjoined Muslim leaders to reject radical Islamists, made an arms deal with Saudi Arabia and asked NATO partners to meet their own defense budget commitments. He ordered military strikes on Syria and Afghanistan. Frustrated by ongoing investigations into Russian election interference and potential campaign collusion, he dismissed FBI Director James Comey and faced accusations of obstructing justice.

That's not to say that I approve the remaining wording, just that we need to start by deciding what (and what not) to cover. --MelanieN (talk) 14:24, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, MelanieN. I generally agree with your cuts, except we should say something about immigration, terrorism and the travel ban, as all these issues were extensively debated over these months; much more than the pipeline stories, for example. Agree to remove anything that is not done yet, such as the border wall, the 2018 budget and the health care reform. Here's an update, condensed into a single paragraph per Tataral. — JFG ^talk 15:46, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

…and the fifth to have won the election despite losing the popular vote, sparking numerous protests.

Trump appointed a Cabinet composed of businesspeople, politicians and generals, and nominated Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. Over the first few months of his presidency, he signed dozens of executive orders, undoing several Obama policies. He withdrew the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Paris Climate Agreement, and unlocked two pipeline construction permits. He enforced stricter controls on illegal immigrants, but his proposed travel ban on citizens from seven Middle-Eastern countries was opposed by the courts. During his first foreign trip, Trump enjoined Muslim leaders to reject radical Islamists, signed an arms deal with Saudi Arabia, and asked NATO partners to increase their military spending. Frustrated by ongoing investigations into Russian election interference and potential campaign collusion, he dismissed FBI Director James Comey and faced accusations of obstructing justice.

@Tataral: Feel free to comment on this slimmer version. I kept Gorsuch because Supreme Court nominees are extremely significant appointments in the United States, and the replacement of Justice Scalia had been a controversial issue under Obama already (as his nominee Merrick Garland wasn't even invited for hearings by the Republican Senate). — JFG ^talk 15:50, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

1) Don't combine the paragraphs. They are separate topics, and anyhow, we have already virtually settled on the paragraph about his election, in the discussion above. A discussion you seem determined to ignore or bypass, unfortunately. 2) This "presidency" paragraph is an improvement. But User:Casprings' proposed paragraph in the discussion above is better. If you want, I will explain why. But I would propose you join constructively in THAT discussion, maybe work out a merger of your version and his. Having two entirely separate discussions on the same material like this is unhelpful and ultimately futile. --MelanieN (talk) 16:01, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section recommends that the "lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs." If the lead section already includes three other paragraphs before the material discussed here, then it should be one paragraph and not two in order to avoid a total of five paragraphs. --Tataral (talk) 16:24, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

That's a generally good recommendation, but not an absolute. Very large and/or complicated articles often need more. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:35, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think any articles need more paragraphs; that the manual of style's recommendations aren't always followed, because it can require a lot of hard work and can be more difficult for us as editors, is another matter. I think we should strive to write as good and well-composed a lead section as possible in this article. I've already proposed a basic structure which should be achievable. -Tataral (talk) 16:50, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: 1) Yes, we are close to consensus for the first three paragraphs above, until election results. I'm just picking up the last sentence of that one to add the protests in just three words, without starting a whole sentence anew. The paragraph on the presidency is separate: I mentioned merging two paragraphs because my first draft was longer. The formatting of the talkquote may have been confusing; I just added an extra line break. 2) I'm looking at the suggestionsby Casprings in the "Break" section and will attempt a merger here. — JFG ^talk 17:41, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

• A couple of comments: 1. An early revision had 3 sentences about Russia. That was WP:UNDUE, and I'm glad it's been trimmed. 2. I don't think the details of his first foreign trip will have enough lasting notability to be in the Lead. 3. One theme that seems to have been consistent during both the campaign and the presidency is seemingly continuous series of often self-created controversies. Not sure how to word that. 4. I don't think "sparking numerous protests" should be tied to losing the popular vote in the last sentence of the previous paragraph. (I think people protested because they didn't like what he stood for, not because he didn't win the popular vote.) ~Awilley (talk) 02:02, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

@Awilley: Thanks for your comments. Could you possibly also voice your opinion on the first three paragraphs as trimmed in the above thread #Merging the forked discussions? Regarding the presidency coverage: 1. OK 2. Possibly, too early to tell, but that's his most prominent foreign policy action to date. 3. Looks like a relevant observation but the article currently doesn't say that anywhere; do you have any sources analyzing those self-inflicted wounds with some hindsight? That could be woven in the article somewhere and then summarized in the lead. But that can wait. 4. I agree, will remove that part from the election paragraph, and add it to the presidency paragraph. — JFG ^talk 06:01, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Updated draft, per latest comments:

Trump appointed a Cabinet composed of businesspeople, politicians and generals, and nominated Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. Over the first few months of his presidency, he signed dozens of executive orders, undoing several Obama policies. He withdrew the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Paris Climate Agreement, and unlocked two pipeline construction permits. He enforced stricter controls on illegal immigrants, but his proposed travel ban on citizens from seven Middle-Eastern countries was opposed by the courts. During his first foreign trip, Trump enjoined Muslim leaders to reject radical Islamists, signed an arms deal with Saudi Arabia, and asked NATO partners to increase their military spending. Trump's election and policies sparked numerous protests. Frustrated by ongoing investigations into Russian election interference and potential campaign collusion, he dismissed FBI Director James Comey, which raised suspicions of obstructing justice.

More comment welcome. — JFG ^talk 06:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: Strike "faced accusations of obstructing justice" per WP:WEASEL; also, WP:PUBLICFIGURE says if you can't find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting an allegation or incident, leave it out. And only one (generally) reliable source (WaPo) has been found for the allegation that official accusations of obstruction of justice have been made. (In this case the RS got its facts wrong, but that's not our concern.)

Yes, unofficial accusations of obstruction have been made. But Trump doesn't need to face, isn't known to have "faced", and would appear to have no personal interest in facing, any of them. --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:35, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Changed to "which raised suspicions of". Still WP:WEASEL but that's what political discourse is focusing on at this point. — JFG ^talk 07:48, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Compare "stop-and-frisk. A police officer's brief questioning of a person when the officer reasonably suspects that the person has committed a crime." He's not a suspect. See WP:BLPSTYLE § BALANCE: Biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times. Also, this information relates to people's "suspicions" about Trump -- not to Trump himself. A section discussing people's suspicions about Trump would (as you're implying) take up the majority of the article. Yes, "that's what political discourse is focusing on at this point" -- which makes it good fodder for Wikinews. I'd rather we not invest any more of our time in this admirable but seemingly doomed project. --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:57, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm the first to despair over the incessant news-hounding that Wikipedia has become, especially on "hot" political issues. Perhaps that's the price to pay for having an essentially complete encyclopedia; news fodder provides the thrill of constant updates when all that could be written on exotic moth species has been incorporated. Now, we all want to make progress on this lead section: do you have a practical suggestion to amend the text? — JFG ^talk 09:32, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: It looks like I'm going to have to categorically deny your implication that I didn't give you "a practical suggestion to amend the text". To the contrary. I obeyed accepted WP:CON policies. I told you about a couple of my legitimate concerns. I tried to persuade you with reasons I believed were based on policy, sources, and common sense. And we do agree that the questioned passage violates the 'No Wikinews' policy. But you seem to be saying that the Trump project has a need to violate it, because "thrill of constant updates". I worry that we may not be heading toward a consensus that's allowable under generally accepted policies. --Dervorguilla (talk) 17:50, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

@Dervorguilla: I'm not implying anything against your contributions, and I happen to agree that Wikipedia shouldn't attempt to be so close to the daily news. Unfortunately, plenty of editors jump to include the latest sensational thing they read or see elsewhere, and then we spent megabytes arguing over who said what when, and which part of the story is more citable / relevant / due. If we want to keep a modicum of balance and neutrality, we must reluctantly engage in those discussions. You may be interested in the "wait before creating articles on hot political news du jour" proposal at User talk:EEng#X-day/week "embargo" on articles on breaking-news topics.

Regarding the hot story du jour: is Trump being investigated for obstruction of justice? Well, if he is, that's lead-worthy; if he isn't that will be one more footnote in the Dismissal of James Comey and Russian interference saga. The problem today is that we don't know for sure one way or the other, as sources are contradictory (see #Quick survey on obstruction of justice investigation). To me, that means it stays out of the lead until things get clearer. Two new wordings have been proposed and are being discussed below: #Let's discuss both proposals, please. — JFG ^talk 20:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Said it better than I could! --Dervorguilla (talk) 20:33, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Some additional comments:

• Leave out "Trump appointed a Cabinet composed of businesspeople, politicians and generals". That is an inaccurate description of his cabinet. It leaves out "brain surgeons" and "campaign donors" for example. And it doesn't mean much since most presidents include some businesspeople, politicians, and military people in their cabinet. And above all it is OR; I don't see any reliable sourcing for this characterization. Just leave it out.
• Completely rewrite "Frustrated by ongoing investigations into Russian election interference and potential campaign collusion, hedismissed FBI Director James Comey, which raised suspicions of obstructing justice." . This is unacceptable for multiple reasons. It implies 1) that we know why he fired him (we don't), and 2) that the firing was the reason for the obstruction of justice investigation (we don't know that), and 3) that there are "suspicions" rather than merely an investigation. Casprings had a much better sentence on this subject above: "Trump fired FBI Director James Comey, and a special counsel was then appointed to look into all Russia-related issues including possible obstruction of justice." I think we should use that. --MelanieN (talk) 16:23, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: The composition of the Cabinet is not OR: plenty of sources commented on Trump's unusual high number of CEO appointments and his "love for generals". The neurosurgeon is also a politician; campaign donors I'm not sure who you're talking about: Betsy DeVos? If that's her, I'm not sure we can say her campaign donations were the main reason she was appointed. Anyway, it's an unusual cabinet (for better or for worse depending on the reader's POV), I'm open to rephrasing this but it deserves mention.

The only unusual things about his cabinet are 1) the unusually high number of billionaires and 2) the fact that several were appointed to head departments they have historically opposed. Those things don't belong in the lede, but neither does this description IMO. --MelanieN (talk) 17:18, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm fine with rewriting the Comey story, as long as it does not exceed one sentence. Russian interference is already linked earlier, so indeed we don't need to repeat it here or assert that it was the main reason for firing Comey. Casprings' proposal looks good; maybe we can improve it a little to match the general tone of the lead? I'd say "Trump dismissed FBI Director James Comey in May 2017; the investigation on Russian interference and potential links with Trump associates was taken over by Special Counsel Robert Mueller". I would not mention specifically the obstruction of justice thing because it's too recent and still unclear (see discussion at the Comey section). — JFG ^talk 16:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Let's discuss both proposals, please

I see a problem. In this "coverage of the early presidency" section we have been discussing the JFG proposed version and comparing it only to "what is in the article now", but not to the original Casprings proposal. I am reproducing that here since it seems to have gotten lost in the jungle of multiple discussions here. It's way up under the section heading "break", plus an additional sentence was later proposed. I am going to reproduce it here after taking a couple of liberties with it, namely, moving the "Russia" sentences to the last paragraph, and adding Casprings' later proposal for a sentence about Comey's firing and the special counsel.

During the Trump Presidency, the United States started a process to withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement. The Supreme Court seated Neil Gorsuch. He attempted to impose a travel ban from several muslim majority states, but several federal courts issued a restraining orders preventing implementation and the case is awaiting review by the U.S. Supreme Court. US war efforts expanded in Afghanistan, Syria, and Yemen. Both his inauguration and certain policies, such as the travel ban, produced large protests throughout the United States. During the election, Russia interfered to support his campaign, sparking an FBI investigation. In May 2017 Trump fired FBI Director James Comey, and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed a special counsel to investigate issues involving Russia and the Trump campaign.

IMO this was a good proposal and one that deserves equal consideration. I would like to see a table that includes this (Casprings) proposal side by side with the (JFG) proposal we are discussing here. In discussion we might choose one or the other, or propose tweaks to one or the other, or eventually come up with a merged version (not trying for one right now because they are so different, but as we discuss it.) --MelanieN (talk) 17:29, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Your wish for an up-to-date comparison table is hereby granted. — JFG ^talk 17:45, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Draft A (Casprings thread)	Draft B (JFG thread)
During the Trump Presidency, the United States started a process to withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement. The Supreme Court seated Neil Gorsuch. He attempted to impose a travel ban from several muslim majority states, but several federal courts issued a restraining orders preventing implementation and the case is awaiting review by the U.S. Supreme Court. US war efforts expanded in Afghanistan, Syria, and Yemen. Both his inauguration and certain policies, such as the travel ban, produced large protests throughout the United States. During the election, Russia interfered to support his campaign, sparking an FBI investigation. In May 2017 Trump fired FBI Director James Comey, and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed a special counsel to investigate issues involving Russia and the Trump campaign.	Trump appointed a Cabinet composed of businesspeople, politicians and generals, and nominated Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. Over the first few months of his presidency, he signed dozens of executive orders, undoing several Obama policies. He withdrew the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Paris Climate Agreement, and unlocked two pipeline construction permits. He enforced stricter controls on illegal immigrants, but his proposed travel ban on citizens from seven Middle-Eastern countries was opposed by the courts. During his first foreign trip, Trump enjoined Muslim leaders to reject radical Islamists, signed an arms deal with Saudi Arabia, and asked NATO partners to increase their military spending. Trump's election and policies sparked numerous protests. He dismissed FBI Director James Comey in May 2017. Special Counsel Robert Mueller took over the investigation on Russian interference and potential links with Trump associates.
Contents of Draft A	Contents of Draft B
This draft has 124 words, 7 sentences and 8 article links. It covers: Nominations: Supreme Court Executive actions: Paris withdrawal Immigration: travel ban, judicial halt Foreign policy: war efforts expansion Generalities: inauguration, protests, Comey dismissal, Mueller investigation	This draft has 141 words, 8 sentences and 17 article links. It covers: Nominations: Cabinet, Supreme Court Executive actions: TPP and Paris withdrawal, pipelines, undoing Obama policies Immigration: ICE reinforcement, travel ban, judicial halt Foreign policy: Riyadh speech, arms deal, NATO spending Generalities: protests, Comey dismissal, Mueller investigation
Themes highlighted in green are unique to each draft. Other themes are addressed in both.
Comments on Draft A	Comments on Draft B

I think mine is badass... I think we need to put some real thought on what is the most important facts here. It is still very early on, but what is most likely to meet Wikipedia:10YT or for this maybe even WP:100YT. Trump seems likely to be someone who has a high degree of historical significance and we should try to make a subjective judgment on what is likely the most historic, at least at this point. This can't be extremely long, which means a lot must be left out. That means, we have to make subjective calls to include and exclude. One way to frame this might be like this:

1. Topic Sentence 2. One Sentence on domestic policy 3. Second Sentence on domestic policy 4. One Sentence on Foreign Policy 5. Second Sentence on Foreign Policy 6. Cultural/political reaction to policies

Six sentences. Only the absolutely most important facts. That is my opinion.Casprings (talk) 17:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

@Casprings: The Russian interference is introduced in §3 (in all variants A, B and C); you might want to remove it from $4 and perhaps add something else instead. — JFG ^talk 20:58, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: I think someone else suggested putting it in that paragraph. I think it should be in the paragraph before and connected to the investigation.Casprings (talk) 21:01, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm proposing a shorter version based on Casprings' content selections; JFG's version has far too many irrelevant details IMO. Gorsuch is WP:MILL; if we include it now I believe it will be removed once something is decided on health care. I'd rather wait for something to happen on health-care, and then add it. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:26, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

During Donald Trump's presidency, US war efforts continued in Syria, and Trump supported further "anti-terrorist" military actions elsewhere. The United States started withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement. His inauguration and many of his actions produced large protests throughout the United States. An attempt to impose a travel ban from several Muslim majority states was blocked by several federal courts; the case is awaiting review by the Supreme Court. In May 2017, Trump unexpectedly fired FBI Director James Comey, leading to an ongoing investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

I don't think that is bad. My thing, keep it short. Other shi..stuff will happen. We shouldn't start with a lot of text. Also, this is why we should squeeze words out of the paragraphs that come before.Casprings (talk) 21:29, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Draft A (Casprings thread) would look significantly different in mainspace. Here's how it appears in the table:

"...US war efforts expanded in Afghanistan, Syria, and Yemen..."

Here's how it would most likely appear in the article:

"...US war efforts expanded in Afghanistan, Syria, and Yemen..."

--Dervorguilla (talk) 23:34, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

• l like draft A. As in the table, not the pared-down-to-nothing version just above. Yes, Russia needs to be in the lede. --MelanieN (talk) 03:30, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

About the "Russia thing", a recent RfC rejected mentioning it, because there is so far no demonstrated connection with Trump himself, and explaining things properly would be too long for the lead. However, this may well be a case of WP:CCC, as this story is still in the headlines a year after it emerged with the DNC email leak. My draft C of the trim includes a brief neutral mention: Russia was accused of interfering in the election to support his candidacy; that's the most we should write in the lead. — JFG ^talk 05:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

That's not an accurate description of the outcome of the "recent" (March) RfC. It was closed "As I read it, Casprings has accepted that the content will not be added to the lead, and they would withdraw this RfC except that they want to discuss "When would it be appropriate to include this?". We are now discussing that question: is it now appropriate to include it in the lede? Considering how the subject has grown in importance and coverage in the three months since that RfC, I think it IS time to include it. Readers need to know what all the noise is about, and a brief explanation of the situation in the lede is appropriate. The draft A proposal is very well worded and I endorse it. I just noticed that the draft B proposal says "took over the investigation on Russian interference and potential links...", but that comes out of nowhere because the Russian interference has not been mentioned. That could leave readers saying "huh?" --MelanieN (talk) 15:18, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: As I wrote, I agree that consensus has probably changed about mentioning Russian interference. Readers won't say "huh?" because it IS already mentioned in the proposed §3 of the lead (drafts A and C), about the election. This is why I did not include in my draft of §4. — JFG ^talk 18:24, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for explaining. --MelanieN (talk) 18:44, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to add Casprings' "Presidency" paragraph to the lede now

There are still a few copy-editing issues and content disagreements, but I think enough of the major issues are worked out. There's a clear consensus it's better than the "no coverage of Trump's presidency" currently in the lede. I propose that "Draft A" in "Let's discuss both proposals, please" be added to the page now, but without any entrenched consensus for the specific wording at this time. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I believe we should first settle on the trimming of the existing parts of the lead: please choose a variant for each of the first 3 paragraphs at the relevant section #Merging the forked discussions. Regarding this §4, we need more input about what should be covered or not, and to which degree of detail. Quite strange that we are only 4 people commenting here. Is everybody on summer break already? — JFG ^talk 15:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

This article (and talk page, particularly) is exhausting. I think that actually making changes will get new eyes (or follow-up changes at the article). I'll start by updating §1 now (the longer one initially); there's no particular controversy there. I'll also put a big comment for new editors. Power~enwiki (talk) 17:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I second the suggestion to add the Casprings version of the final paragraph (Draft A) to the lede since there is nothing there now about his current presidency. If we don't do anything until everything is ready, nothing will ever get done. As for why more people aren't chiming here, that's not at all strange. No, it's not summer vacation. It's that everyone is screaming sick of these endless discussions, and has moved on to other things, both on Wikipedia and in Real Life. I am just about to that point myself; as I mentioned above, I am not following most of the discussions here and need to be pinged if my input is requested. Let's wrap up the discussions about the rest of the lede, archive the threads so we have a workable talk page again, and move on. --MelanieN (talk) 18:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I've attempted to "split the difference". Hopefully normal editing (or more contained chat threads) will smooth the remaining rough edges. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Power~enwiki, that surely is a good way to move forward. I have edited the paragraph further;[1] feel free to amend as necessary. — JFG ^talk 06:46, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Issues/comments on both versions

I haven't followed the entirety of this lengthy discussion, but Casprings' proposal seems decent. I of course agree that we should mention Russia as it has largely dominated his presidency. My notes:

On JFG's version: There are several significant problems here / items I disfavor:

• "Cabinet composed of businesspeople, politicians and generals" because that is common to virtually all modern presidents.
• The wording of "enjoined Muslim leaders to reject radical Islamists" is also somewhat problematic for a similar reason: every modern president has called upon leadership to stop funding extremism. Trump is not unique in this regard. Riyadh speech is not important enough for lead section. Cuba, I think, would be more worthy of a mention.
• "enforced stricter controls on illegal immigrants" - this is somewhat vague, even for a lead section (what is "controls?") and not at all clear on this point. If this is about a rise in increase in deportations and raids or an increased focus on non-criminals, we should say so.
• "seven Middle-Eastern countries was opposed by the courts." - First, Somalia and Sudan are not Middle Eastern countries. Second, they were not merely "opposed" by the courts but actually blocked by the courts following legal challenges.
• "asked NATO partners to increase their military spending" - again, not really unique to Trump. Every U.S. president has asked NATO allies to increase their financial share. Obama did so as well. (Link). That's not unique. What is unique is that U.S. relationships with NATO allies have been historically strained.
• "unlocked two pipeline construction permits" - I disfavor the odd "unlocked" language - "grant permit" or "authorized" or "approved of" or virtually anything else is better. Frankly, I think the reversal of Obama environmental regulations is more significant than Keystone or the other pipelines.

On Casprings version:

• "several federal courts issued a restraining orders" - needs to be reworded. Courts initially issued temporary restraining orders, but these were later converted into nationwide preliminary injunctions, which re far more lasting and significant. (link)
• "certain policies, such as the travel ban, produced large protests throughout the United States" --> perhaps mention "protests through the U.S. and world" (there was definitely protests abroad)
• " the case is awaiting review by the U.S. Supreme Court" - this is not precisely accurate. The U.S. Supreme Court must first grant review, and the Court has not yet done so. We should not mention the Supreme Court until they either grant or deny certiorari (i.e., choose to hear or not hear the case).

Further notes:

• On the Russia investigation, we should link to the appropriate articles and should specifically mention Mueller.
• I support a brief mention of changes in Cuba policy. It's a major development (significant reversal) and some sort of Western Hemisphere reference is appropriate.
• Eventually we will have to include a note on health care and ACA review, whether a bill is enacted or not.
• Ditto the Mexico border wall: the ultimate outcome should be noted in the lead section when the time comes.

Neutrality^talk 20:15, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I endorse everything Neutrality has said. Agree we don't have to mention the "first trip abroad" and should mention Cuba. IMO the border wall and AHCA will have to wait until something either reaches his desk or is definitively abandoned. --MelanieN (talk) 22

53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I also basically agree with all these judgements. This is good analysis and I would ask Neutrality to write a version of his own. I honestly thing that version might be about right.Casprings (talk) 23:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@Neutrality: Thanks for your comments; I have addressed most of them in further editing of the version inserted in the article.[2] Feel free to amend as appropriate. — JFG ^talk 06:50, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

It looks like we haven't yet answered the question as to which statement most fairly represents the global balance of perspectives of high-quality sources: "Russia interfered..."; or "Russia was accused of interfering...".

To accomplish this, we need to consider established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world. If the statements are (more or less) equally conspicuous in the global body of high-quality sources, we need to describe both. Maybe we can find a tertiary source that does this in a disinterested way.

Here's a compilation of the relevant statements in the body text: (1) [three persons stated it] "attempted to intervene"; (2) [a person affirmed it] "interfered"; (3) [a person told Congress of its] "efforts to interfere"; (4) [two persons called this a] "false narrative [of] interference [or a] fictitious explanation"; (5) [an organization] "accused [it] of trying to influence"; and (6) [three organizations] "have denied the allegations [of trying to influence]" the election. --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:45, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

@Dervorguilla: I am archiving this long thread. I would respectfully request that you open the discussion about Russian interference in a new thread, if you think it's worthwhile. Thanks for your understanding. — JFG ^talk 09:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

First Financial Disclosure 2017

It has been released at this link or here with commentary. Should we mention this given the controversy regarding the speculation about "conflicts of interest", and Trump keeping his tax returns private? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emir of Wikipedia (talk • contribs) 22:53, June 16, 2017 (UTC)

I don't think so. It seems like a fairly routine disclosure and the secondary source doesn't say much about it.- MrX 01:50, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with MrX. If there's no news coverage, it's WP:MILL. Even if there is news coverage, it's unlikely to be important. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:21, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Worth a brief mention in the Donald Trump#Resignation section, as it clarifies his current legal standing towards The Trump Organization. — JFG ^talk 07:24, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

…and perhaps as a followup to his earlier asset disclosures in Donald Trump#Financial disclosures. — JFG ^talk 07:33, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

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 [3] 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[4] — 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. [5] 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)

Reminder: lead section trim

Consensus reached
The ongoing discussion on trimming the lead section is close to consensus. Please voice your opinion on the draft trim at #Merging the forked discussions. A separate thread is discussing #Coverage of the early presidency to add an extra lead paragraph after the rest is trimmed. — JFG talk 07:00, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Double-sourcing or removing disputed facts about this public figure

Collapsing per consensus
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
We can improve the article by double-sourcing or removing any disputed facts about him. (For helpful background material, see § A BLP policy aide-mémoire.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC) This is unnecessary. We ALL know this stuff. Stop it. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:23, 21 June 2017 (UTC) Dervorguilla, why have you posted a piped link "for helpful background material" which links back to your own post? I don 't see the point. Did you mean to pipe to something else? Bishonen | talk 16:50, 21 June 2017 (UTC). @Bishonen: 1. My understanding of TALK#COMMUNICATE is that I ought to explain my opinion -- here, my opinion that we can improve this article by adding to some facts a second source per PUBLICFIGURE (as limited by the BLP intro). According to Black's Law, a "background" signal calls out a "cited authority [that] presents helpful background material related to the proposition". Black's encourages "the use of a parenthetical explanation of the source material's relevance" -- especially when this relevance "might not otherwise be clear to the reader". (§ Introductory Signals; § Parenthetical Information.) And so my comment contains a link to the Talk section that leads to some background material (Leslie, First Amendment Handbook, with clarifying quotations from Merriam-Webster Unabridged) that helps explain my opinion. "Get independent corroboration whenever possible. A source could have a vendetta against the subject and willfully or unintentionally misrepresent the facts for his or her own purposes... Don’t rely on someone else to be accurate." ("vendetta. A prolonged [mutual enmity] marked by bitter hostility [between individuals or factions]. Corroborate. Confirm.) Gregg P. Leslie, ed., The First Amendment Handbook, 7th ed. (Arlington: The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, 2011), 10; Merriam-Webster Unabridged.) . . . Let's say you have reason to think that an RS (the Post) and the subject (Trump) could be hostile to each other. According to the Reporter's Committee for Freedom of the Press, even a responsible, reputable organization could have a vendetta against someone and could unintentionally misrepresent some facts about that person. So, you can't rely on the Post to be accurate here. You need to confirm what it's saying. You need to find a second, independent RS. (I go on to acknowledge that the quoted passage is no more than analogically helpful in deciding whether an edit violates PUBLICFIGURE.) 2. My understanding of TALK#TOPIC is that I ought to focus my comment on some particular way to improve the article. Meaning, I ought to direct editors' attention to something specific -- like, one particular part of a policy. So, I focus on the most relevant part of the 184-word Public Figures policy, condensing it down to 25 words. I likewise condense the BLP intro (255 words) down to 22. Some of the facts in the article are likely to get disputed. A few may be about persons non-notable or dead; those can stay. The others would need to get double-sourced or go. And I direct editors' attention to one particular part of the article itself. Illustration. "Trump is officially under investigation... Special counsel investigating Trump for possible obstruction of justice..." Julie Vitkovskaya, "Trump Is Officially under Investigation. How Did We Get Here?", Washington Post, June 15, 2017. Had Trump been officially under investigation, some independent third-party RS would most likely have made that allegation too! They didn't, so JFG had to leave it out. . . No second, independent RS had alleged the fact, so if JFG had chosen to go ahead and add a statement about it to the article, I could have just removed it for POV; but then I would have had to begin yet another discussion. Many thanks for pointing out that I needed to put more effort into explaining all this! --Dervorguilla (talk) 23:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC) Sorry, I don't understand all that, Dervorguilla; it's quite irrelevant to my question. The link you specifically referred to as containing "helpful background material" is completely self-referential: this is the form of it in edit mode: [[Talk:Donald_Trump#Double-sourcing_or_removing_disputed_facts|A BLP policy aide-mémoire]]. Following it will take the reader to this very section, which at the time you posted contained only your own post. What are you talking about "my comment contains a link to the Talk section that leads to some background material"? No: your comment contains a link to this particular section. (And it contains a couple more links, that I didn't ask about.) This section doesn't lead to "some background material". I don't know you, so I don't know if your reply is a troll or a simple misunderstanding, where you didn't notice what I specifically asked about, and/or never followed the link I mentioned. In any case, I'm done. Please don't put any more effort into "explaining". Bishonen | talk 23:30, 21 June 2017 (UTC). (←) Text correction: The quoted piped-link [[Talk:Donald_Trump#Double-sourcing_or_removing_disputed_facts|A BLP policy aide-mémoire]] is not identical to the hypothetical piped-link [[Talk:Donald_Trump#Double-sourcing_or_removing_disputed_facts_about_this_public_figure|A BLP policy aide-mémoire]] In context, the second would be "self-referential" as written. But not the first. It becomes (equivalent to) self-referential only when the target section is hidden or removed. --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:33, 23 June 2017 (UTC) Section fix Now that I understand the problem here, I think I can fix it on my own. To memorialize the history and context: 01:08, 21 June 2017: I post some background material in the 'Public-figure policy' subsection of the 'BLP policy aide-mémoire' section. 04:03, 21 June 2017: I create this section, 'Double-sourcing or removing disputed facts about this public figure'. It includes a piped link pointing to the 'Public-figure policy' subsection. 13:15, 21 June 2017: A user hides all of the comments in that 'BLP policy aide-mémoire' section. His edit makes the piped link become equivalent to self-referential. It now leads back to its own anchor section -- not to its original target. So by hiding my comments there, his edit makes the link go to the wrong section, thus altering the meaning of my comments here. To fix the link problem, I can just undo the edit (per WP:TPNO, misrepresentation by altering; and per WP:TPO, to restore the original link target). --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC) 02:38, 23 June 2017 (UTC)  Done: Hab template removed, link problem fixed. --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC) I'm sorry, but this is insane. This is a complete misuse of an article talk page. You have been told many times by multiple editors that this is no place for your "explainer" about policies. It doesn't even refer to the subject of the article! It's just a generic lecture of editors, many of whom have far more Wikipedia experience than you do. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC) @Scjessey: See the related User talk discussion. Per WP:POINT, my comments were direct: I applied no policy or policy interpretation to any content dispute where the community as a whole didn't agree that my action or presentation under that policy or interpretation was reasonable. Per WP:TALK#Topic, my comments focused on ways to improve the article. On 02:31, 21 June 2017, for example, I added this relevant material to the 'A contemporary illustration [partly completed]' subsection: "If JFG had chosen to add a statement about it to the article, I could have removed it just for POV; but then I would have had to begin yet another discussion." My comment discusses a statement ("Trump appointed..." that does directly "refer to the subject of the article". Your 'hab' edit hides that comment and alters the meaning of my comments here, by breaking a link ('A BLP policy aide-mémoire') and making it act as if it were self-referential.. As advised at WP:POINT#Examples, I "watched recent changes and fact-checked anything that looked at all suspicious". On 7:08, 21 June 2017, for example, I fact-checked the suspicious statement that "The Washington Post later reported that ... the FBI started investigating...", and I tagged it for "". On 08:21, 21 June 2017, I added the corrective statement that "The Post's allegation was later contradicted by ABC News." The community agreed that my action and presentation were reasonable. --Dervorguilla (talk) 23:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC) 00:51, 23 June 2017 (UTC) 01:12, 23 June 2017 (UTC) 02:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC) Thanks for the examples. They are in the past. If you have future examples I assume you will bring them up in specific section headings, not this generic talk about guidelines. So can we hat this now? It seems to be a source of more heat than light. --MelanieN (talk) 04:03, 23 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.[6] — 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)

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.[7] Quite the opposite.[8] 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)

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)

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)

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.[9]. 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. [10]. It makes it very hard to discern who said what. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:47, 24 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)

• 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) 04:47, 24 June 2017 (UTC)