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

Current consensus

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 Superseded by #15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 (Nov 2016, Dec 2016) (Superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)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 Superseded by #35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 (Sep 2016, February 2017, wording shortened per April 2017, upheld with July 2018) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019)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

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 Superseded by #17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)

Infobox image (sorry, sorry, sorry)

Just a heads up it's likely to be deleted. [1] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:27, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

You can't make this stuff up. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:34, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh, no! [2] You mean there ISN'T a public domain official image? For the past six months we've been shutting down all the "use this image instead of that one" arguments by saying "we have to use this one, it's the official image." Now we have to go back to the info-box image wars? Arrggghhh!!! (And thanks for the heads up, and no need to apologize - it's not your fault.) --MelanieN (talk) 03:36, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I'll get this started for you pre-RfC, perhaps prematurely if the result of the above-linked discussion is Keep. Of the photos on Commons by the current White House official photographer, only File:Donald and Melania Trump in the Oval Office 2017.jpg would be remotely suitable for the infobox. It would need cropping, and you can have his arms and unidentifiable parts of Melania, or neither. And he'd have leaves growing out of his head, clearly related to the smoke coming out of his ear in another photo (you can't crop that close to his hair and make a decent portrait). No American flag except the one on his lapel. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:17, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually there are more Craigheads that might work. I didn't realize there are multiple pages. I don't feel like going through them all at the moment. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:21, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I did my best to crop the picture. What do you think of File:Donald Trump in the Oval Office 2017 cropped.jpg ? Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 13:20, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Amazingly good crop. You know the White House has a Flickr account, not used as often as Obama did, but there might be more options than that one image, for example this one. I imagine somebody already uploaded that to the commons. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:10, 2 June 2017 (UTC) Woops, sorry, Mandruss already said this. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:13, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

The Trump administration should be punished for this farcical state of affairs by putting up the most unflattering public domain image of Trump we can find. It won't take long for the White House to release a decent official portrait to the public domain if we do that. I just can't even... -- Scjessey (talk) 14:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Wouldn't work. They already chose the most unflattering image possible. He apparently WANTS to be seen as scowling. Maybe if we use the smiling-happy-face crop suggested above, they will retaliate by coming out with another scowling official one, this time in the public domain. --MelanieN (talk) 14:35, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

That would be nice. So, can this one be considered consensual for now ? Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 15:07, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Now that we know this is not a public domain image, or otherwise permissible under WP:NFCC, it needs to be removed from the article immediately, which I will do presently.- MrX 17:38, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done. Others can decide what would be a suitable replacement. Perhaps a cropped version of the oval office photo.- MrX 17:54, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Replacement

Portrait proposals

• 
  Picture A
• 
  Picture B
• 
  Picture C
• 
  Picture D
• 
  Picture E
• 
  Picture F

It's aesthetically appropriate and also consistent for the portrait to feature the American flag in the background, as is the case with other Wikipedia articles of recent former presidents. As soon as someone is able to secure such a photo, it should definitely be used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tzhu07 (talk • contribs) 08:33, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Would this picture be ideal for all things suggested so far? File:Donald_Trump.png Agith (talk) 16:02, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

The "Pic A" seems like a good stopgap until we settle on a more permanent image, and it might do as the permanent one as well. It's not super-high-quality, but Trump supporters will appreciate a photo that makes him look reasonably good (and opponents can take heart in the image showing a horse's ass!). Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:01, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I have included the "Pic A" in the infobox for the time being, and written a note. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I actually prefer the crop created by User:Jean-Jacques Georges, listed here on the left as picture B. To me it is clearer, better focused, and has a somewhat better expression. And the background is less cluttered. But I will accept either. And I think we should leave "A" in the infobox for now. --MelanieN (talk) 18:38, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

The nose (or the first nose, if you prefer) is way to the left on pic B, not centered. Plus pic B has about 20% fewer pixels, and the flag on his suit is sliced. The poor lighting in pic B results in more shadow. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:46, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I would prefer pic B if not for its very low res. Overall, I like pic A as a replacement, but I'd suggest removing the empty space above Trump's head. κατάσταση 18:51, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I also prefer B which I find better focused, but will not throw a fit should A be chosen. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 18:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

The nose and eyes in pic A are pretty much centered vertically, if we leave the space above head. Leaving that space also allows users to figure out what the statuette is. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:55, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I prefer pic A which seems to have a much higher image quality than pic B, it looks clearer and brighter to me. An added bonus is that the flag pin isn't cut off in the image as well. Jeanjung212 (talk) 19:16, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Pic A looks to this amateur like a high-quality informal portrait (although I understand that many professionals would disagree). --Dervorguilla (talk) 19:40, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Pic A is by far the best photo of Trump in the public domain, it's makes a shockingly good replacement of the original. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 20:12, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Both A and B look pretty awful with a creepy smile, poor lighting, poor focus. I'm starting to trawl through the myriad pictures of Trump since he came to office. Here's a first suggestion as Picture C: neutral expression, good focus, high resolution, clean crop. Will look for others asap. — JFG ^talk 20:11, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Added Pic D: 1. Better to show part of the thing above his head than to crop right down to his hair, which is extremely bad form in portraits. (Unless the photo was taken in front of a blank, completely uniform background, there will always be something appearing to come out of his head. For example, a cropped Pic C would have has multiple spokes coming out of his head. I merely cropped out enough to avoid it looking like a leaf and being unduly distracting.) 2. 0.8:1 aspect ratio, pretty much standard for portraits, at least in the U.S. Same as an 8x10 photo. 3. Doesn't chop off his lapel pin. 4. Pic A seems overexposed to me, along with other problems including overcropping. Pic C would face outward away from the text, which is an automatic disqualifier. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:22, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Pic D is quite good. I like the crop that includes shoulders, that's more like most of our infobox pictures which are rarely just a headshot. And it's by the White House photographer and is clearly public domain. --MelanieN (talk) 20:41, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Pic D is fine IMHO, but we should try to crop the plants growing out of his head. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 21:13, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Reiterating point 1 in my preceding comment. Emphasis on extremely bad form in portraits. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:21, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Should be changed to either C or D. This is a poor quality and poorly framed photo that honestly appears chosen to make him look ridiculous. Isenta (talk) 21:43, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Hence the problem with rushing to any change (which is, by the way, expressly forbidden under the ArbCom remedies in effect at this article; see the prominent notice at the top of the page). There was absolutely no reason to change the image before the existing one was deleted (that was done even before Pics B, C, and D had been presented). I would support reverting to the pre-existing image or installing Pic D, in that order, but I'm not going to add to the disruption by doing that unilaterally. A few editors need to learn that WP:BOLD is to be interpreted differently under the remedies. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I found a higher-resolution pic from which I have re-cropped pic A. It seems to look fine above, but was temporarily distorted in the article itself. It now looks fine in the article too. I support keeping Pic A as a stop-gap at least until another image is selected via a survey or whatever. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:56, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I oppose retaining a change that demonstrated a clear disregard for the remedies. And, if we feel the need for a stop-gap at this stage, D is a far better stop-gap than A in any case. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:09, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Image D is very poorly lit, and poorly posed; he looks hulking and dark. And the resolution is much better in Image A, which has more than twice the pixels. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:13, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE
Honestly, it doesn't matter. He looks like an idiot in any picture. I prefer images that aren't so closely cropped, but really there's no way to polish that turd. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:14, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

OT

::If someone made the above comment on the Barack Obama page, Scjessey would be the first to remove it and to call for the person to be banned. Anythingyouwant wants to remove it but I'd like for it to remain to reflect Scjessey's bias and the crude manner in which he expresses his opinions.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:20, 3 June 2017 (UTC) User:William S. Saturn, the fact it remains speaks volumes about how admins who watch Trump-related pages primarily volunteer their time to ensure those pages are sufficiently derogatory. As you say, it would have been deleted long ago if it were directed against almost any other living person. It should still be removed. Better late than never. On the other hand, I would much rather have been called an idiotic piece of shit than some of the false things admins have said about me at Wikipedia. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:18, 3 June 2017 (UTC) You both need to read my comment again and parse it properly. It says that Trump always looks like an idiot in pictures, which he does. For some reason, he just doesn't photograph well. Then it says I prefer images not so closely cropped, but the only example of such we have is awful, so I said "there's no way to polish that turd" - using a common phrase to describe trying to make something better out of something awful. There's no BLP vio there, unless you have some reading comprehension issues and just scanned the words "idiot" and "turd", I guess. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:20, 3 June 2017 (UTC) Of course, I would never call you an idiotic piece of shit, User:Scjessey, and it would hardly be any different for me to say that your comments make you look like an idiotic piece of shit. So I won't say that either. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:47, 3 June 2017 (UTC) It says that Trump always looks like an idiot in pictures, which he does. Scjessey, a basic layman's understanding of human psychology tells us that that opinion arises almost entirely from your negative view of Trump (which I share by the way). I'll leave it to others to sort out the BLP question, but it's very bad form to present one's opinions as indisputable facts. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:55, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Regarding picture C, I disagree that facing away from the text is "an automatic disqualifier": it's a criterion among others to help choose the best picture. To me, facial exxpression, focus and lighting are much more important. See also the infobox pictures of current world leaders Emmanuel Macron, Paolo Gentiloni and Donald Tusk. However Vladimir Putin agreed to face the text! — JFG ^talk 22:13, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Once again we show that image selection is largely subjective and (aside from things like outward-facing, which are covered in guidelines) arguments should be read as "in my opinion, per my personal aesthetic taste, visual perception, perspective, political leanings, and arbitrary weighting of factors". At this point, then, I would suggest reverting to the pre-existing photo. If a stop-gap proves necessary, we can install the photo that has the greatest support at that time (even if it lacks a majority). For the longer-term consensus we can and should run an RfC. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:21, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Isn't the pre-existing photo a copyvio? Anyway, I think Pic A has the most support as of now. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:23, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

That is a question to be answered by the discussion at Commons, which remains open, despite some editors' need to presume the outcome prior to close. That discussion is linked in the OP. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:27, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done I have temporarily restored the official portrait and updated the wikitext comment, pointing people to this discussion. We should find an agreement on a replacement before the official one gets deleted. Sigh… — JFG ^talk 22:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Mandruss, no, it is not a question to be answered on Commons. If an OTRS volunteer and admin asserts that an image is not in the public domain and has not been licensed under CC, it must be removed. To not not do so can be considered willfull copyright infringement and is a blatant violation of WP:NFCC. Restoring that image evinced very poor judgement.- MrX 00:55, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry but I think we need to tap the brakes here and think about this; just because the photograper demands and a Wiki admin concurs, does not make it so. These people cannot just set aside or reinterpret copyright law on a dime. Look at the Copyright Policy at whitehouse.gov, and then view the image on Trump's official bio page. That image is published to that website, and there is not an explicit exception posted alongside it. Ergo, the image is released under CC BY 3.0. TheValeyard (talk) 01:09, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Precious few of us are knowledgeable enough that we can make unilateral declarations out of process. That's why we have discussions. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:39, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh, the Whitehouse website says everything is free so it must be, because of course they would never just make things up. WMF legal can sort this out because it's pretty clear that the "community" is clueless about how to properly do so.- MrX 02:02, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me that the website gets to dictate the terms of its own use. Note that the photographer was so concerned about his copyright that he didn't even require a credit on the web page. But what do I know, I'm not a lawyer specializing in copyright law. Are you? Your last sentence makes good sense, as this community of part-time, unpaid volunteers should not be expected to be able to sort this out. We still need to stay within our process until the process is overridden by WMF. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:10, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Hold up there... As an OTRS agent who was consulted on the ticket relating to this image, and active on the deletion request (which was started out of process, should have been deleted on the spot after OTRS agent requested it, but were waiting for something on the ticket, so never did it), I must make it clear it is not CC-licensed, and that there is no clear evidence that the statement on whitehouse.gov is legally true. It is unfortunate that I can't reveal the info on the OTRS ticket, but you just have to take the OTRS agents words for it, and the trust that the Commons community knows what they are doing when it comes to copyright laws (and policies of their project). --(t) Josve05a (c) 00:27, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

@Josve05a: You may be missing my point, which was that we shouldn't be acting unilaterally out of process, which in this case was the Commons discussion. We also don't need to; the fact that the image link was removed here within the process - within mere minutes of the close - proves that clearly enough. The difference between out-of-process removal and in-process removal was a matter of a few hours, and I seriously doubt that, after the image being in the article for months, we significantly exposed Wikipedia to a lawsuit in those few hours. It's a simple matter of cool heads and common sense versus impulsive overreaction. If the process is generally inadequate to the task, the solution is to improve the process, not to act outside of it. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:37, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

• I added Picture E which is from this year, its a higher quality than the rest, its possibly his better pic because he is looking towards the camera (if not directly at it) and he isn't as red or orange as other pictures make him out to be and a simple 'white balance' fixed the picture..--Stemoc 22:26, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I very much like picture E. Just want to add I agree with TheValeyard about the old photo. We have licenses for a reason and this one is in plain English. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:36, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Does anybody know how to change the little image in this template ? I can't figure it out. THanks. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 08:25, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I honestly do not know or particularly care what this guy told an OTRS agent. The official photo of the President of the United States was published on a government website which explicitly states what material contained therein is and is not CC-licensed. Maybe the photographer did not want it to be released that way, but once it was done, it is irrevocable. This is a chilling assault on public domain law by this administration. TheValeyard (talk) 18:21, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually (not to reveall OTRS ticket info), only yhe copyvight owner (photographer in this case) can relase it under a license, regardless of trms a reuser may state on their website. There is more info in the OTRS email ticket than meets the eye, so no, it is not irrevocable (because the copyright owner did not release it). --(t) Josve05a (c) 21:01, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Josve05a: The White House plainly says that the image is licensed under a Creative Commons license. The photographer may have licensed it that way himself at one point, or he may have given the White House the right to sublicense the work. Even if the OTRS ticket disputes this, it can't prove such an agreement wasn't signed. At most, it's the photographer saying that the White House doesn't have a right to sublicense versus the White House's published claim that it does. I know the Trump administration is widely distrusted, but I still think we ought to believe its public version of events over an account given by a private individual in secret. Rebbing 02:49, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

There are likely multiple appropriate venues to raise such an objection, but I'm pretty sure this isn't one of them. WP:VPP might not be the best, but it would be closer to it. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:57, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Ok, the appropriate venue is c:Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#Files in Category:Official portraits of Donald Trump, also linked in a separate subsection below. My suggestion is that continued debate on this page is both wrong venue (the matter affects far more articles than this one, on many wikis) and pointless (no decision will be made here). Recommend someone else collapse if this continues. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:28, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Survey: Selection of stop-gap image

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.

---

Please state your subjective preference. If and when the Commons discussion closes as Delete, the image with the greatest support here will be installed. This will be regardless of amount of participation or degree of consensus. The "winning" support will likely be less than 50% given the number of choices, but there will not be enough time to narrow the field to 2 and re-vote. This will be followed by an RfC to establish a more durable consensus. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:59, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• D is my subjective preference and does not go counter to any guidelines that I'm aware of. Those who care about my subjective arguments can read the preceding subsection. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:59, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
• Pings @NeilN, MelanieN, Jean-Jacques Georges, SusanLesch, Scjessey, MrX, Anythingyouwant, Κατάσταση, Jeanjung212, Dervorguilla, JFG, Isenta, and Stemoc: ―Mandruss ☎ 23:05, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • User:Emir of Wikipedia too. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:13, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
    • Thank you. An honest oversight, I swear! :) ―Mandruss ☎ 23:33, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
• C – Neutral expression, good lighting, good focus, background not too distracting. Bonus points for matching Melania's official portrait (until that one loses copyright soon as well?) — JFG ^talk 23:09, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
• A or F are my subjective preferences and do not go counter to any guidelines that I'm aware of. Those who care about my subjective arguments can read the preceding subsection. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:10, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
• E. In regards to color, framing and expression, I think it's the best and most fitting IB replacement (for now, at least). κατάσταση 23:12, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
• E. A subjective preference, but I believe that any with the except of the low resolution poorly lit F is acceptable. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 00:13, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
• D is my preference in this situation. Most of the other images I do not prefer for how they crop the American flag lapel pin, are dark, or just more pixellated. Jeanjung212 (talk) 00:35, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
• E looks great. I like the background and that he hasn't turned on his photo smile. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:38, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
• E As it stands, the quality of others is really poor, I felt like we went back to 2015 when there were less than 5 choices of images, and all were poor, for now we only select from 2017 images even though there were much better options from 2016 but if we do that, we will end up with a "Picture Z" as well lol.--Stemoc 00:41, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
• D is my first choice. C is my second choice. Absolutely not F which is terrible because of the poor lighting. --MelanieN (talk) 00:46, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
• E is my first choice. C is my second choice. B, D, and F is a no. I suggest removing B entirely because that crops out part of the US flag and it is lower quality. --Excel23 (talk) 01:08, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
• E or A since they are both good headshots of the President, E comes first due to A having the distracting statue. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 01:16, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - Evenly-split votes, such as Anythingyouwant's, are easy; you just divide the vote into equal parts, in his case 1⁄2 (or 0.5) for each of A and F. Unevenly-split votes are problematic when they don't indicate how to weight them. It may be unlikely, but it's at least possible that the outcome would hinge on the choice of weighting in a very close vote. It would be useful for unevenly-split votes to specify the weighting in fractions that sum to 1. (My 6-votes-per-voter system addresses this problem, but it seemed like overkill for this situation.) Votes of opposition to an image further complicate scoring to the point that I would be inclined to ignore them. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:34, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

When I do one of these I count "1.0" for a first-choice positive vote, "0.5" for second choices, and "-1.0" for opposes. Are you trying to run some kind of contest, or to find out how people really feel? In my opinion "oppose" votes (as opposed to didn't-vote-for votes) are very significant. --MelanieN (talk) 02:35, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

What I was trying to do was run a fair and equitable process. If some editors cast one vote and others cast 1.5 votes or even more, that doesn't seem like equal voting power. If my feelings are divided between multiple images, they are inherently less strong for either of them than if I voted for only one. The only fair way to represent this arithmetically is to have everybody's votes add up to 1 (or any arbitrary value, such as 6 in the case of my 6-votes system).
Similarly, you could allow opposition voting, but it would have to be based on the absolute values, i.e. 2 and -1 sum to 3, not 1. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:25, 3 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.

Just a note, the Commons discussion is closed and the image will be deleted within the hour. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:45, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

• C is my first choice. Good lighting and a neutral expression. F would be a weak second choice. I don't care for the lighting but E is far too bright and the others all have him grinning like some caricature of a lunatic asylum inmate. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:48, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

  Ad Orientem, I just made F a little brighter. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:23, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

• E does it for me. E stands out as a comparatively relaxed, non-stress-provoking image of Trump -- which is (in my opinion) just what this country needs right now... (Also, it doesn't look overly bright on my old PC.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:36, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
• I commented before and was pinged but have no opinion now as all possibilities seem reasonable. At one point there was a badly cropped, low quality, stretched image that looked absurd and it was that I had issue with. Isenta (talk) 04:17, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
• E is the best quality. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 00:52, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

New consensus and potential future changes

So, JFG, do you concur that consensus 1 should be stricken at this point with a note and a link to this parent section? I lack the TE authority, and I would have been scared off by the giant yellow edit warning anyway. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:45, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

@Mandruss: I'd wait a few days until the undeletion request at Commons reaches a conclusion. Community consensus to use the White House official portrait remains valid, however the community is faced with a copyright dispute on this image, and has adopted a temporary replacement. If the official portrait remains unavailable, we would probably have to conduct a site-wide discussion to choose a new default portrait: consensus can change, but any new consensus should be at least as strongly determined as the prior one. — JFG ^talk 05:43, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

A week has gone by and the deletion stands at Commons. Meanwhile, new picture E has not been challenged. Will update consensus accordingly. — JFG ^talk 05:22, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: Thanks, however this consensus was intended from the outset to be short-term. Still need an RfC, and I would prefer someone else started it. Your username comes to mind. :) ―Mandruss ☎ 08:17, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Yet another discussion on the damn Trump portraits? Thanks but no thanks. — JFG ^talk 08:41, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: Worst possible way to end discussion on this? Put up an image that received 50% of the vote and call it settled for the long term. You've been warned. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:44, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I consider it settled for the short term. WP:CCC will eventually happen. — JFG ^talk 19:49, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I see. So you accept that there will be yet another discussion on the damn Trump portraits, and in the short term, but like me you don't want to be the one to start it. Thanks for clarifying. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I support the consensus decision above. Ideally, Donald Trump will have a formal portrait commissioned (using paint) at some point, which will demonstrably be a public work and thus in the public domain. I see no reason to discuss this until then. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:10, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: Ironically, our own article about painted presidential portraits inform us that Gerald Ford and all presidents since Reagan "were painted by artists who were not employed by the federal government at the time. These images are not in the public domain, and as such, are not included in this gallery." Tough luck! For the same reason, we can't use The Visionary (fair use on its own page only), which would be particularly outdated anyway. — JFG ^talk 19:49, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

This is above my pay-grade. What a nightmare. I support the current image, and if there's another discussion, I'm going to support having no image at all in the infobox unless the White House explicitly provides a public-domain image on whitehouse.gov. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:52, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Should have used the official portrait of President Donald Trump. Marxistfounder (talk) 06:30, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

The official portrait was removed from Wikipedia for copyright reasons, prompting this very thread to search for a replacement… — JFG ^talk 19:49, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Undeletion discussion

Please see undeletion discussion of the official portrait images on Commons: c:Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#Files in Category:Official portraits of Donald Trump. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:27, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Biased line in the beginning of this article?

There is the line "Many of his campaign statements were controversial or false, generating much free media coverage." right at the beginning of this article. That seems like it is a bit biased, because while true that a lot of statements were false, that is true for many if not all US politicians. This statement should go under the 2016 Presidential Campaign section, or be reworded as such to sound less biased. Maybe something as simple as just removing the "or false".

2601:8C2:4280:C0D:D51A:6EAB:5A4D:F7A1 (talk) 14:33, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

No, it actually reflects factual, verifiable coverage of the subject. Whether it applies to other politicians or not is not relevant. See item 7 in the sticky: #Open RfCs and surveys.- MrX 15:46, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

@MrX: To be more on point, we could even expand it: "All of his campaign statements were controversial, false, or reportedly false..." (Well, almost all.) Wouldn't you agree? --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:55, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

No, I don't think so, but if you know of some sources that support such wording I would be happy to take a look at them.- MrX 11:28, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

First name of the grandfather

For those who don't remember me: I am the one in WP who knows about the President's German roots, and I wrote the relevant articles in de.WP. Mostly based on Gwenda Blair: The Trumps.

Donald's German grandpa was born Friedrich Trump in Germany, and it is fair to mention this. He sticked to this name in his first years in NY where he lived in a mostly German milieu (which was common in the US before WW I). But when he went to Seattle, he became an American in every respect (Blair) and changed his first name to Fred or Frederick. So in the sentence concerning his death, Friedrich should be set back to Frederick. And somehow the discrepancy should be explained.

In case of questions, please ping me. --Klaus Frisch (talk) 19:11, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done, thanks.[3] — JFG ^talk 05:50, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Sexual misconduct claimed allegations

Since Melania Trump is mentioned in the paragraph about the groping tape, should her comments be included? (I think she dismissed them as normal locker-room talk).87.247.53.24 (talk) 02:36, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

No. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:42, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, there is so much detail about this affair already, I believe a brief mention of Melania's position would be warranted. Any quote available? — JFG ^talk 05:52, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Not in this biography article. I presume her comments are already included in the article about the tape. --MelanieN (talk) 18:47, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

COI, Melanie? Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:35, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Shucks, you caught me. (P.S. Note the disclaimer on my user page.) --MelanieN (talk) 13:42, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

No one is who they used to be.🙂 Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:20, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 June 2017

Infobox

Please change from

"The Wharton School (B.S. in Econ.)"

To

"The Wharton School (B.S.  in  Econ.)"

(B.S. in Econ.) ← correction --Schistocyte (talk) 14:55, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

---

Schistocyte (talk) 13:43, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Schistocyte. May I ask why we would want double spaces? Someone appears to have inserted a thin space on purpose. A typographer might agree that less space is necessary after a full stop. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:06, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I intended to suggest single spaces: "(B.S. in Econ.)" Apologizes for the confusion, SusanLesch (I submitted the edit request on a mobile device). Relatedly, when looking at the article on mobile, the thin spaces seem to be less apparent. At least from my perspective, I honestly thought it was a typo. While I am not an expert in typography, Penn's website lists the degree with single (non-thin) spaces: "B.S. in Econ." Schistocyte (talk) 14:48, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for looking it up. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:49, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Note. Template:Thin space causes thin spaces to "not word wrap." Sorry I wasn't aware of that before answering. I don't think we have a problem because the words themselves won't wrap. Anyway. Just posting this here in case somebody ever wants to restore the template. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:18, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Russia redux

Dear fellow editors, please bear with me as I bring up yet another discussion about the Russia–Trump affair(s). The current version of this Trump biography mentions Russia in five places:

• section "Russian interference in election", under "2016 campaign", stating that US intelligence accused Russia of interfering to help Trump, and Trump's rejection of the ensuing "witch hunt"
• section "Interactions with Russia", also under "2016 campaign", detailing investigations of connections between Trump associates and Russian officials
• section "Dismissal of James Comey", under "Presidency", where the "Russia thing" is mentioned as one of the reasons for firing him
• a paragraph mentioning the intelligence reports and denials by Trump, Wikileaks and Putin, under Presidency / Transition / "Pre-inauguration events"
• a paragraph about Trump's overtures to Russia under "Foreign policy"

I would suggest consolidating all this except the foreign policy bit into a single section called "Russia controversies", which would have two sub-sections:

1. "Election interference" about the 2016 events including interference reports, denials and other reactions
2. "Investigations" about the ensuing investigations into Russian connections of Trump and some of his associates, and related testimonies.

This second section would incorporate the Comey dismissal. Per WP:SUMMARY this should be kept relatively short, as other articles cover the issues in great detail. I'm not sure where this section should be included: it certainly is connected with the 2016 campaign, although it has also significantly affected Trump's transition and presidency. Perhaps the best approach would be to give it a top-level section, which would sit between "Presidency" and "Awards". Comments welcome. — JFG ^talk 09:15, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - The material should remain in the proper context. See WP:CSECTION. The Comey dismissal is all about Trump. I oppose removing material that is both relevant to the subject and and historically significant. Any major removal of material should be preceded by a consensus.- MrX 11:37, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - These are all separate things: 1. Russian interference in the election, 2. Trump and Trump family ties to Russia, 3. Trump campaign associates ties to Russia, 4. Investigations into all the Russia connections, and 5. Trump's efforts (such as the firing of James Comey, use of executive privilege) to squash or shape said investigations. Attempts to lump these together will confuse the reader, although it is possible one or two parts could be combined. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:15, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Quite the opposite: having these issues smattered around the article is more confusing to readers. I am proposing to build a solid section on all things connecting Trump with Russia; contents would be mostly the same as today, except redundancies. — JFG ^talk 13:30, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Context is important. Controversial matters should be woven into the prose in a context that makes sense. Deliberately lifting all these things out and putting them in a "controversies" section is bad writing. As MrX pointed out, it violates WP:CSECTION, which attempts to summarize the view of controversy sections espoused by Jimbo Wales. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:29, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support as long as the Russian interference in our election remains its own section. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:21, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Separate things should be kept separate, unless a link is confirmed. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:13, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose There is ample reason to include each of these items where they are. --MelanieN (talk) 18:45, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I disagree with the assertion that the Comey affair's relevance in this article is related to Russia at all. The "Russian interference in election" should still be deleted entirely IMO as being biased and entirely related to events after the 2016 presidential campaign; the remaining sections need editing but are fine to keep for now. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:05, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

entirely related to events after the 2016 presidential campaign Huh? The interference (hacking, releasing, trolling fake news) all happened DURING the 2016 presidential campaign. The FBI investigation of it began in July 2016. Obama announced it in October 2016. It's true the sources we cite are from 2017, but they are talking about things that happened during 2016 campaign. --MelanieN (talk) 19:37, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

There's no reference to any actions taken during the 2016 campaign, just "high confidence that the Russian government attempted to intervene". I'm not sure what actions it is suggested that Russia actually took, other than:

1. those already discussed in "Interactions with Russia"
2. hiring people in the Balkans to post to Twitter. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:42, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Then we can add a lot more detail, but I thought we were trying to SHRINK the article. The Russians had done enough, by October, for the president of the United States to call them out publicly. And to impose significant sanctions in December as punishment for ... nothing? --MelanieN (talk) 03:47, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Shrink, yes, if possible. If there are important details not mentioned, they should be added. I'm not sure what they would be, perhaps the Podesta emails? Power~enwiki (talk) 03:53, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. It's all fine where it is. Context is important. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:16, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support Redundant and out-of-place content should be removed and/or consolidated. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:20, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose merging everything Russia into one section, but support removing unnecessary repetition, as long as it doesn't impede the reader's ability to understand one subsection without reading the rest of the article. I think the Comey dismissal merits its own subsection, independent of whatever we have on Russia. ~Awilley (talk) 23:42, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Comment. I agree with AWilley that "unnecessary repetition" should be removed. An aside: At some point we ought to address whether Russian interference in election should be reworded to "Allegations of Russian attempts to interfere in election". (As far as I know, Comey's testimony has yet to be fact-checked.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:50, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Bulk revert

@MrX: You have reverted in bulk a lot of changes I made recently; this is unnecessarily undoing lots of work, most of it unrelated to Russia, where I understand we disagree on the level of detail that is warranted in this bio. We share a common goal to improve the article. Please self-revert and I'll be happy to discuss each of my edits on its own merits. — JFG ^talk 13:21, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I didn't revert you per se. I restored the material that you removed, contrary to consensus. In particular, there were strong objections to removing material about the Comey dismissal. I'm happy to discuss your proposed changes, but let's get consensus before injecting them into the article. Does that seem reasonable?- MrX 13:28, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

OK. Looking at your edit more closely, I see that you essentially restored the Comey section prior to my summation efforts, and ditto for the Trump University section. I'll open a discussion section for each of the two proposals. — JFG ^talk 17:21, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Comey section

Summation of the Comey dismissal section[4]

Before

After

On May 9, 2017, Trump dismissed FBI Director James Comey, attributing the action to recommendations from Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. Rosenstein had written a memo criticizing Comey's conduct in the investigation about Hillary Clinton's emails. But Trump himself seemed to contradict the White House claim that he had acted because of the Clinton email issue identified by Rosenstein. On May 11 he stated, "When I decided to [fire Comey], I said to myself, I said, 'You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made up story, it's an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should have won.'" In the same interview he said he had intended all along to fire Comey, regardless of any recommendations. Also on May 11, a White House spokesperson directly tied the dismissal to the Russian investigations, saying the White House believed firing Comey was a step toward letting that probe "come to its conclusion with integrity". Multiple FBI insiders said they believe the real reason Comey was fired was because he had refused to end the investigation into Russian connections to the election, and in fact had intensified his involvement with the investigation, receiving daily instead of weekly briefings on its progress. According to memos written by Comey documenting his interactions with Trump, in February 2017 Trump said, “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go”, in relation to the FBI investigation into Michael Flynn, who was forced to resign as National Security Advisor after it was discovered that that he misled the Vice President about communications with a Russian ambassador. In March 2017, Trump separately asked Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats and Director of the National Security Agency Michael S. Rogers to issue statements saying there was no evidence that his campaign colluded with Russia during the 2016 election, after Comey had informed the House Intelligence Committee that the FBI was investigating the possibility of collusion. Both Coats and Rogers declined to issue the requested statement. They reportedly regarded Trump's request as extraordinary but not illegal. They believed it was more of a public relations request. They exchanged notes about the conversation, and Coats recorded a memo about it.

On May 9, 2017, Trump dismissed FBI Director James Comey, attributing the action to recommendations from Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein, which criticized Comey's conduct in the investigation about Hillary Clinton's emails. However Trump stated on May 11 that he was concerned with the ongoing "Russia thing" and that he had intended to fire Comey earlier. According to a Comey memo of a private conversation on February 14, 2017, Trump said he "hoped" Comey would drop the investigation into Michael Flynn, who had been forced to resign as National Security Advisor after it was discovered that he had misled the Vice President about communications with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak. In March and April, Trump had told Comey that the ongoing suspicions formed a "cloud" impairing his presidency, and asked him to tell the public that he was not personally under investigation. He also asked DNI Dan Coats and NSA Director Michael S. Rogers to issue statements saying there was no evidence that his campaign colluded with Russia during the 2016 election. Both refused, considering this an inappropriate request, although not illegal. Comey eventually testified on June 8 that while he was director, the FBI investigations did not target Trump himself. However, The Washington Post later reported that within days of Comey's dismissal, the FBI started investigating whether Trump had obstructed justice.

Sources
References

Please express your support for the proposed text, improvement suggestions or opposition to summarizing. — JFG ^talk 17:21, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - The proposed version leaves out Trump's shifting reasons for the firing and the memos, and replaces it with Trump's hopes and feelings. I have previously opposed a similar rewording proposal.- MrX 17:31, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

The short version still mentions "Trump's shifting reasons", just in a shorter way: the Rosenstein / Sessions letter, then the Holt interview where he admitted wanting to fire Comey regardless, Trump's veiled request to drop the Flynn investigation, and finally the "cloud over the presidency" issue, which came to light recently and was not yet in the long version. We also have Trump's requests to Comey, Coats and Rogers to acknowledge publicly the lack of personal investigation or evidence of campaign collusion. I cut out Trump's rambling quote and the White House / FBI insiders squabble. What do you want to add? — JFG ^talk 17:44, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support the trim overall - we do need to trim the size of this article, keeping in mind that it is a biography - with a few tweaks. 1) Add Comey's eventual public statement that Trump was not personally under investigation. 2) Add "Comey testified" or "Comey said" attribution to the Flynn "Trump said he hoped" statement - since Trump denies he said it. --MelanieN (talk) 18:41, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: I have incorporated your suggestions in the prose. Are you ok with the result? — JFG ^talk 11:32, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I support as amended. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 16:48, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support. Thank you again. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:22, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
• Qualified support - per suggestions made by MelanieN. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:30, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support as amended by MelanieN. --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:53, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

• WAIT a minute - I think we need to add a sentence. It was revealed earlier this week that Trump himself is now under investigation, over possible obstruction of justice. Trump himself has publicly admitted that he is, and that it is about firing Comey.[5][6] I think this needs to go in the "Dismissal of Comey" section, and there is no need to wait for confirmation, since Trump himself has confirmed it. How about something like this:

However, on June 16 it was revealed that Trump himself is under investigation for possible obstruction of justice, particularly involving the firing of Comey.

Striking this. An alternate version of this is now in JFG's proposal above; another suggestion from Scjessey is below. --MelanieN (talk) 22:19, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I started the sentence with "however" because the rest of the paragraph is about saying that he was NOT under investigation (which he wasn't - until he fired Comey, partly because Comey wouldn't say publicly that he wasn't under investigation - and as a result of that firing, now he is. How ironic is that?). Thoughts? --MelanieN (talk) 17:10, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and we should probably modify the preceding sentence - "Comey eventually testified on June 8 that the FBI investigations did not target Trump himself." - to add "while he was at the FBI" or "as of May 9" or some such thing Because of course Comey was only talking about the situation up until May 9; he wouldn't have known what the situation was on June 8, and in fact I don't think there's any need to say June 8 in the sentence. How about "In June Comey testified that as of May 9 the FBI investigations did not target Trump himself." --MelanieN (talk) 17:50, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Striking. Revised version of this is in JFG's proposal above. --MelanieN (talk) 22:19, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

@JFG, MrX, SusanLesch, Scjessey, and Dervorguilla: What do you think about the above two suggestions? --MelanieN (talk) 17:56, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Added a sentence about the obstruction investigation at the end, attributed to WaPo instead of the vague "it was reported". No need to specify that Comey only referred to the situation until he was fired; that's kind of obvious and we're trying to summarize. — JFG ^talk 19:18, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: I'd be tempted to go with something like: "Comey testified on June 8 that while he was director, the FBI investigations did not target Trump himself. Subsequently, The Washington Post reported on June 16 that Robert Mueller was investigating Trump for obstruction of justice." -- Scjessey (talk) 21:00, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I like that better. Flows better, and dates are clear. {{User:JFG|JFG]]? --MelanieN (talk) 21:08, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Oppose "it was revealed" anything (a pet peeve). I support the addition, however, using a real subject and verb. If Trump tweeted, then please say so. Many news sources cite his tweets. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:20, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

@SusanLesch: We already got rid of "it was revealed". The current choices are what is now in JFG's proposal above (his modification of my suggestion), or the new proposal by Scjessey. --MelanieN (talk) 22:19, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, @MelanieN: Can we edit the final sentence of JFG's version? To 1) identify Mueller (at this first mention), and 2) to date the inquiry back to early May? I've hit my allotment at The Washington Post but perhaps this article gives the day the investigation began. Please delete "June 16" which makes no difference to anybody. Also we could add that Trump "seemed to confirm". -SusanLesch (talk) 23:42, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Here's a rewrite that needs sourcing: -SusanLesch (talk) 00:23, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

The Washington Post reported, however, that since shortly after he fired Comey, Trump was being investigated by FBI special counsel Robert Mueller for obstruction of justice, a development that Trump seemed to confirm in a tweet.

Thanks. Just one tweak: Mueller is not the "FBI special counsel", he is the "special counsel". --MelanieN (talk) 00:40, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

My gosh. Thank you for the correction. -SusanLesch (talk) 02:09, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I support that addition with the correction. I'm not clear on what two suggestions MelanieN referred to, but I guess the wording here supersedes it anyway. I am firmly opposed to the wording: "Trump felt that the ongoing suspicions formed an undue "cloud" above his presidency;" which reads like bad fiction and should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice because it's not a verifiable fact.- MrX 01:45, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

@MrX: That is definitely verifiable: Trump expressed his frustration in several tweets and public addresses, and Comey noted in memos and in Senate testimony that Trump had told him exactly that, in order to try and convince him to absolve him publicly. [Yeah, too many "him"s here, but I suppose it's clear who is who.] Now, perhaps the wording could be improved to not sound like bad fiction! Any suggestion? — JFG ^talk 17:01, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: You're missing the subtle point. The source did not conclude how Trump "felt", it said

"On March 30, Mr. Comey said, he received a call in his office from the president. “He described the Russia investigation as ‘a cloud’ that was impairing his ability to act on behalf of the country,” Mr. Comey wrote.... He encouraged Mr. Comey to “lift the cloud” by saying publicly that he was not under investigation. Mr. Comey did not do so."
— [https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/07/us/politics/james-comey-statement-testimony.html?_r=0

.

It should be reworded. Something like: "Trump asked Comey to tell the public that he was not personally under investigation, which he said created a "cloud" over his presidency." (I believe it's clear who is who in this wording as well.)- MrX 19:49, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Alright, nobody is in Trump's head and stomach to assess his "feelings", so let's stick to what he said (taking Comey's testimony at face value): Trump told Comey that the ongoing suspicions formed an undue "cloud" above his presidency, and asked him to tell the public that he was not personally under investigation. Flows well into his requests to Coats and Rogers in the next sentence. — JFG ^talk 22:38, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

JFG, that is not a faithful representation of what the source wrote (which I quoted directly above). There is no mention of "undue" and your wording makes the metaphor seem more like a weather report.- MrX 13:41, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Removed "undue", Changed the "weather report" cloud above his presidency to a direct quote of Comey's word cloud impairing his presidency. Are we good to go now? — JFG ^talk 05:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I support SusanLesch's proposal, with a slight tweak to get rid of the passive voice:

The Washington Post reported, however, that within days after Comey's dismissal, the FBI launched an investigation into Trump for possible obstruction of justice, a development that Trump seemed to confirm in a tweet.

References

Note that the investigation was begun "days after" Comey's firing per WaPo, which was before there was a special counsel. And I agree with "seemed to confirm" since the WH is now saying Trump was merely repeating what he had read in the papers. --MelanieN (talk) 17:29, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

This kind of confusion is what we get for chasing the tweets… Simpler to just say However, The Washington Post reported that within days of Comey's dismissal, the FBI started investigating whether Trump had obstructed justice. — JFG ^talk 22:25, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I can support that. Yesterday MSNBC had a discussion that said the subject of an investigation might not even know he is the subject (that the investigator does not have an obligation to inform the investigatee, if that's a word). -SusanLesch (talk) 22:59, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, SusanLesch; you had me at "investigatee"! Was Nixon then a Watergatee? — JFG ^talk 23:25, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I can support that. --MelanieN (talk) 04:37, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Looks like we are converging. I have amended the proposed text accordingly. @Dervorguilla, MelanieN, MrX, Scjessey, and SusanLesch: Can you vouch for the full text as it now stands? — JFG ^talk 07:45, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

STOP per WP:PUBLICFIGURE (see below). We need two sources, not one. And to "better inform the reader", we ought give an incident description, not just the incident type (obstruction of justice). For example: Within days of Comey's dismissal, the FBI started investigating Trump's reason for firing him: whether Trump did so because Comey was continuing the Kelly investigation or because he was failing to find leakers in the intelligence community. --Dervorguilla (talk) 13:24, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Come on, D. Trump has given a whole series of reasons for firing Comey - because of the Hillary email investigation (nobody believed that), because he was "not doing a good job" and the FBI was "in turmoil" (promptly contradicted by multiple sources), and because he wanted to remove the "pressure" of the Russia investigation (which he basically said several times). I don't think he ever said "because he wasn't investigating the leaks", did he? In any case, this brief summary item is not getting into the reasons why Comey was fired, just the fact that he was. And the fact that an investigation was launched "within days". As for needing two sources (I assume you mean two sources that he is under investigation for obstruction of justice), we have two: the newspaper reports, and Trump's own tweets. --MelanieN (talk) 18:15, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

@Dervorguilla:, I don't think we need to delve into details of the myriad reasons why Trump may have fired Comey, or why he might be accused of obstruction. (Trump has been accused of so many things we could write several articles about Trump's alleged nefarious schemes… oh wait, we have several articles about Trump's alleged nefarious schemes! ) We are just trying to summarize verifiable facts here: Comey was investigating Russia and Trump associates, and he wouldn't say whether Trump was directly targeted. Trump fired Comey, then he was reportedly placed under investigation (hopefully we shall learn more soon). Eventually Comey testified that Trump was indeed not targeted earlier. Are we good to go now? — JFG ^talk 05:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: I don't like it, mainly because of the use of "however". The sources say that the investigation into Trump began after Comey was fired, but as written it makes it look as if Comey's testimony that Trump wasn't under investigation was inaccurate. We must make it clearer that there's a "cause and effect" situation. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:47, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Scjessey. If Comey was fired May 9 then it makes no sense to highlight his June 8 testimony that Trump was not being investigated. The only important date is May 9. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:44, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

We need to use Scjessey's earlier rewording of the previous sentence as well as SusanLesch's rewording of the last sentence. That gets rid of the lack of clarity about what time period Comey was referring to, and justifies the use of "However". The two sentences together are, Comey testified on June 8 that while he was director, the FBI investigations did not target Trump himself. However, The Washington Post later reported that within days of Comey's dismissal, the FBI started investigating whether Trump had obstructed justice. --MelanieN (talk) 18:06, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

BTW I am not following all of the dozen-or-so current threads on this page, so if my input is desired somewhere, please ping me. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 18:22, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks MelanieN. I have amended the last two sentences per your suggestion. I kept the word "eventually" because it shows that Comey took a long time before eventually accepting to say publicly that his investigation did not target Trump. Are we good to go now? @Scjessey:, is this enough of a "cause and effect" to your liking? @SusanLesch: can you live with this version? — JFG ^talk 05:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Trump University section

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.

---

Summation of the Trump University section[7]

Before

After

Trump University LLC was an American for-profit education company that ran a real estate training program from 2005 until at least 2010. After multiple lawsuits, the business is now defunct. It was founded by Trump and his associates, Michael Sexton and Jonathan Spitalny, and offered courses, charging between $1,500 and $35,000 per course. In 2005 the operation was notified by New York State authorities that its use of the word "university" violated state law, and after a second such notification in 2010, the name of the company was changed to the "Trump Entrepreneurial Institute". Trump was also found personally liable for failing to obtain a business license for the operation. In 2013, the State of New York filed a $40 million civil suit alleging that Trump University made false statements and defrauded consumers. In addition, two class-action civil lawsuits were filed in federal court relating to Trump University; they named Trump personally as well as his companies. During the presidential campaign, Trump repeatedly criticized Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel who oversaw those two cases, alleging bias because of his Mexican heritage. Trump later said that his concerns about Curiel's impartiality were not based upon ethnicity alone, but also upon rulings in the case. The Low v. Trump case was set for trial on November 28, 2016 in San Diego. Shortly after Trump won the presidency, the parties agreed to a settlement of all three pending cases. In the settlement, Trump did not admit to any wrongdoing but agreed to pay a total of $25 million. The litigants agreed to the settlement just an hour before a hearing regarding Trump's latest request to delay the trial until after the inauguration. Jason Forge, the attorney for the plaintiffs, said he "definitely detected a change of tone and change of approach" from the Trump representatives after the election. The settlement was called into question on March 6, 2017, when Sherri Simpson, a Florida bankruptcy lawyer and former Trump University student, filed an objection.

Trump University LLC was a for-profit education company founded by Trump and his associates, Michael Sexton and Jonathan Spitalny, that ran a real estate training program, charging between $1,500 and $35,000 per course. In 2005 the operation was notified by New York State authorities that its use of the word "university" was misleading and violated state law. After a second such notification in 2010, the name of the company was changed to the "Trump Entrepreneurial Institute". Trump was also found personally liable for failing to obtain a business license for the operation. In 2013, the State of New York filed a $40 million civil suit alleging that Trump University made false statements and defrauded consumers. In addition, two class-action civil lawsuits were filed in federal court relating to Trump University; they named Trump personally as well as his companies. During the presidential campaign, Trump criticized Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel who oversaw those two cases, alleging bias in his rulings because of his Mexican heritage. Shortly after Trump won the presidency, the parties agreed to a settlement of all three pending cases, whereby Trump paid a total of $25 million and denied any wrongdoing.

Sources
References

Please express your support for the proposed text, improvement suggestions or opposition to summarizing. — JFG ^talk 17:21, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support - I'm fine with this and I've self reverted with an explanation.- MrX 17:37, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! — JFG ^talk 17:46, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support. Good trim. --MelanieN (talk) 18:43, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Looks great. One minor suggestion:

  In 2005 the operation was notified by New York State authorities that its use of the word "university" was “misleading” and violated state law. After a second such notification in 2010, the name of the company was changed to the "Trump Entrepreneurial Institute."...

  Schistocyte (talk) 23:41, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. — JFG ^talk 04:43, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support - Very good. More of this, please! -- Scjessey (talk) 13:31, 15 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.

Cabinet-level nominations

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 entire section can be reduced significantly. An initial proposal. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:06, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Cabinet-level nominations

Before

After

Trump has nominated Senator Jeff Sessions as Attorney General, retired Lieutenant General Michael Flynn as National Security Advisor, (later replaced by Lieutenant General H. R. McMaster), Kansas Representative Mike Pompeo as CIA Director, education reform activist Betsy DeVos as Secretary of Education, South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley as Ambassador to the United Nations, former Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao as Secretary of Transportation, U.S. Representative Tom Price as Secretary of Health and Human Services, financier Steve Mnuchin as Secretary of the Treasury, billionaire investor Wilbur Ross as Secretary of Commerce, retired Marine Corps General James Mattis as Secretary of Defense, former campaign rival Ben Carson as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, retired Marine Corps General John F. Kelly as Secretary of Homeland Security, former WWE CEO Linda McMahon as Administrator of the Small Business Administration, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt as Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, businessman Andrew Puzder as Secretary of Labor (later withdrawn, replaced by FIU Law Dean Alexander Acosta), ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State, former Texas Governor Rick Perry as Secretary of Energy, Montana Representative Ryan Zinke as Secretary of the Interior, South Carolina Representative Mick Mulvaney as Director of the Office of Management and Budget, international trade lawyer Robert Lighthizer as U.S. Trade Representative, Indiana Senator Dan Coats as Director of National Intelligence, Veterans Under Secretary David Shulkin as Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and former Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue as Secretary of Agriculture. Despite being nominated promptly during the transition period, most cabinet members were unable to take office on Inauguration Day because of delays in the formal confirmation process. By February 8, 2017, President Trump had fewer cabinet nominees confirmed than any prior president two weeks into their mandate, except George Washington. Part of the lateness was ascribed to delays in submitting background-check paperwork, part to obstructionism by Senate Democrats. The last Cabinet member, Robert Lighthizer, took office as U.S. Trade Representative on May 11, 2017, more than four months after his nomination.

Trump's cabinet nominations included Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions as Attorney General, financier Steve Mnuchin as Secretary of the Treasury, retired Marine Corps General James Mattis as Secretary of Defense, and ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State. Trump also brought on board politicians who had opposed him during the presidential campaign, notably neurosurgeon Ben Carson as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, and South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley as Ambassador to the United Nations, While most of Trump's nominees were approved by the GOP majority in the Senate, the confirmation of education reform activist Betsy DeVos as Secretary of Education required Vice President Pence to cast a rare tie-breaking vote. Most cabinet members were unable to take office on Inauguration Day because of delays in the formal confirmation process. Part of the lateness was ascribed to delays in submitting background-check paperwork, part to obstructionism by Senate Democrats. The last Cabinet member, Robert Lighthizer, took office as U.S. Trade Representative on May 11, 2017, more than four months after his nomination.

Sources
References

• Support trimming, with the following suggestions:
  • Add Nikki Haley and Ben Carson to the list of significant appointments, because they were campaign rival:s
  • Remove the withdrawal of Puzder, which was his own decision

Can I edit the proposal accordingly? — JFG ^talk 04:41, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Go for the editing. I believe Puzder withdrew because he was not going to get 50 votes, but it was never officially stated in that way [8]. Neutral on Haley/Carson. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:43, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done — JFG ^talk 04:57, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support. Good job. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:27, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

This seems generally accepted, I've made the change to the article. Further improvements can be made there. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:27, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support changes and support doing the edit already. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:32, 15 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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 June 2017

Could you please add President Trump's parents to the sidebar on his page? Figfires (talk) 11:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done. Oversight corrected, thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:32, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 14 June 2017

Hi. Could someone please fix the missing links in #19 in Current Consensus for link 3 and link 4. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:41, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

 Not done However, @SusanLesch: you should be able to edit that now, lowered protection. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:48, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done. Thank you kindly, @Xaosflux:. -SusanLesch (talk) 01:01, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Good catch, SusanLesch, thanks for your assistance in maintenance! — JFG ^talk 20:14, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

The lead section

The lead section is horribly written/outdated, perhaps because it was probably mostly written before he became president. The events for which he is most notable, his scandal-ridden presidency so far including his major initiatives/policies, are barely mentioned at all (and most of the material relating to his presidency are just trivia, such as him being the "oldest and wealthiest person ever to assume the presidency"). Instead nearly the entire lead section focuses on details of his early interest in politics in 1987, details of his campaign last year, and excessive details of his business career, which is really less impressive and certainly of far less importance than his presidency, which includes his failed Muslim ban, his failed healthcare reform (that is a very polite description indeed, which he hasn't really earned), his withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement (ditto), his (pro-Russian and anti-western/NATO) foreign policy, the lawsuit over corruption[9], his firing of the FBI Director, and now an ongoing investigation of him personally for obstruction of justice by the special counsel.[10] In short: It's time for a complete overhaul of the lead section, with at least a whole paragraph devoted exclusively to his actual presidency, including major policy initiatives and scandals, per WP:LEAD. --Tataral (talk) 23:49, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. Trump was already notable for his real-estate career and for The Apprentice before becoming President. We shouldn't re-write the lede to focus on the first six months of his presidency. By the end of his first term, this may be the correct thing to do, but not now. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:42, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

The idea that the lead section should mostly focus on the Apprentice throughout his presidency is frankly absurd. The Apprentice is dwarfed in importance of what he does during his presidency. --Tataral (talk) 04:29, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree in part, I think the lede is outdated indeed and I've suggested expanding it to include at least a summary of his presidency so far (the major events like writing EO 13769 and 13780, attempting to pass AHCA, enforcing border security, withdrawing from TPP and Paris Agreement, Gorsuch confirmed, etc.), all while keeping a neutral tone. I'm against including the Russia scandal right now, I think it needs more momentum, particularly if Mueller reaches a more solid conclusion in the future. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 03:02, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think the lede is in pretty good shape. It has been exhaustively refined over a long period of time by many editors reflecting the entire political spectrum. Bear in mind that this is a biography of Trump's entire life. What some consider trivia, others consider biographically significant. Presidency of Donald Trump is where you need to delve into Trump's scandals and awful policies. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:37, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

"Exhaustively refined"? Hardly. Very little serious work on the lead section has taken place since he took office, and the few attempts to improve and update it have had few results. The lead section mostly reflects the situation from before he became President and is ridiculously outdated and hardly mentions what he is primarily known for at all. The lead section also reminds me of the notorious Vladimir Putin article where paid Kremlin agents have been at work for years to remove/downplay any criticism while filling the article with propagandistic praise (as many editors have agreed on on the talk page over the years). While it's true that the article needs to cover Trump's entire life, his previous activities and his golf resorts are not equally important as his presidency, and should be given much less weight in the lead section in particular. The fact that we don't even have a single paragraph that really discusses his presidency in the lead section is outrageous. --Tataral (talk) 14:24, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Trump's presidency is not part of his entire life? For the record I don't think the lead is poorly written, just incomplete. His presidency so far has been a major event and that's not even included in the lede. It basically just stops at "he became President on January 20, 2017 and that's it", as if nothing happened since then. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 14:39, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the main point of your comment, that the lead section covers his life until he became President and then stops the day he takes office (or the day before, since it doesn't mention his inauguration crowd size etc etc). When I say the lead section is also badly written, I am thinking of sentences like for example "His political positions have been described by scholars and commentators as populist, protectionist, and nationalist." This is not a fair or accurate summary of the actual criticism, as discussed several times on this talk page already; but that's another matter, and the key issue here is that we should have at least a paragraph devoted to his presidency, including his policies and initiatives and other actions as President. Barack Obama's article includes a first paragraph summarizing the most important points, then a paragraph discussing what he did before he became president and ending with his election as president, and then two lengthy paragraphs in the lead devoted to what he actually did as President ("Obama signed many landmark bills" ... etc etc). (I think for now it would be sufficient with one paragraph devoted to Trump's presidency, since he hasn't been in office for as long as Obama). --Tataral (talk) 15:24, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@Tataral: You mention, "The lead section also reminds me of the notorious Vladimir Putin article where paid Kremlin agents have been at work for years to remove/downplay any criticism while filling the article with propagandistic praise..." That article's Wikiproject assessment reads "B-class article"; Trump's reads "C-class". Does this disparity suggest to you that Putin's "agents" may be of higher quality than Trump's? --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:27, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

If you have something of actual substance to say, I'm more than happy to continue that conversation on Talk:Vladimir Putin. --Tataral (talk) 10:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Obstruction of Justice

As reported independently by the The Washington Post , The New York Times ,and Wall Street Journal, the section removed here [11] should be restored. Casprings (talk) 03:12, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - "investigating Trump for possible obstruction of justice" is not "Obstruction of Justice". If he announces he's found something and is pressing charges we can add it. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:16, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I do support a 1-sentence reference to Mueller's appointment in the "Dismissal of James Comey" section, but nothing more. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:20, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

• I agree. The section blanking (with a blatantly false edit summary which misrepresents the edit in question by falsely pretending that it merely removes a link to an article discussed on AfD and which offers no rationale at all for blanking the whole section) constitutes simple vandalism and should simply be reverted. There is no doubt that this material belongs in the article; it's reliably sourced, extremely relevant content directly related to the subject of the article. Whether a different stand-alone article is discussed on AfD (where it's clear that it will be kept) is immaterial for whether we should mention the investigation here. --Tataral (talk) 04:25, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - The obstruction of justice allegations have not matured enough, so we are in a WP:NOTNEWS situation for the immediate future. Certainly something to monitor though. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:39, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Per WP:NOTNEWS, "editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events." There is nothing in NOTNEWS to suggest that an article should not include relevant, well sourced, and up to date information.Casprings (talk) 14:00, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support, but don't create a new section for every news development. It is very rare for a sitting US President to be investigated for criminal activity. There has been ongoing coverage since Comey's firing, more coverage after Comey's testimony, and now a surge in reporting following the Washington Post article. For now, the brief material should be added to the 'Dismissal of James Comey' section until there are more facts (not commentary) about the investigation.- MrX 14:27, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support and Oppose I support it's inclusion in the article but oppose a separate section. Just work the content into one of the existing sections. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:24, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
• Probably merits a sentence in the Comey section. ~Awilley (talk) 16:49, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

JTBC: I'm not going to edit of course, but I just wanted to get this massage out. It's stunning that desperate Trump supporters are trying to shield this page from mentioning that the president of the United States is under criminal investigation for possible obstruction of justice of the probe into whether his campaign colluded w/ Russia. This is not a banana republic -- when Hillary Clinton was under criminal probe, it was mentioned in her article. Trump should not be different. Nobody suggested he's guilty -- but he's under investigation. This isn't just WaPO, but also NBC News. To those trying to stop the truth: you'll never succeed, and people will know that Trump is criminally investigated. And I consider myself centrist & neutral -- just stunned by the double standard between others to whom we did write they're under probe. Archway (talk) 11:32, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I feel compelled to say something here. I opposed the inclusion of this material when it was first proposed, on the grounds that it hadn't yet matured enough to be beyond doubt. We must be cautious not to jump the gun and defame the subject. I can categorically say that in no way was I trying to "shield" Trump from negative coverage. I don't want you to confuse my caution and desire to reflect Wikipedia policy with some kind of agenda. I am, in fact, delighted Trump is (apparently) under investigation. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:54, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

@Archwayh: Regardless of the merits of your arguments, calling your fellow editors "desperate Trump supporters" is not appropriate conduct on Wikipedia. Neither would anyone appreciate being called a "desperate Clinton supporter", a "desperate Bernie Bro" or a "desperate Putin troll". Thankfully, that election season is over. Scjessey is exactly right: we are all here to improve the quality of articles regardless of each person's opinions. Actually, the friendly confrontation between good-faith opinionated editors often results in net improvements to encyclopedic coverage and neutrality. Please focus on the edits, not the editors, and refrain from casting aspersions about what you may perceive as political motives. You may want to edit your signature to reflect the correct spelling of your username; that would ease replying to you. — JFG ^talk 20:12, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Lede Section Rewrite

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, sparking numerous protests. 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. Many of his campaign statements were controversial or false, generating extensive media coverage. 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, sparking numerous protests. 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	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. 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 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)

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 and faced accusations of obstructing justice.

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 June 2017

000033m (talk) 20:58, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:00, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

45th President of the United States to 45th president of the United States

Howdy. An Rfc at WP:MOSCAPS is in progress & so far, de-capitalizing appears to be the favored interpretation. If that's going to be the result, then it's best we start de-capitalizing here, at all the US presidents & vice presidents intros, as well as all the US governors & lieutenant governors intros. Thus here, we'd have "...45th and current president of the United States", instead of "...45th and current President of the United States". GoodDay (talk) 19:38, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

No rush. Ping us back when that RfC is closed. It has only two !votes at this time, one for uppercase and one for lowercase, and a long-winded back-and-forth between editors arguing over job titles in general. I can't see how you can assert that "de-capitalizing appears to be the favored interpretation". Again, there is no rush. And please sign your posts. — JFG ^talk 19:25, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, no rush. More input at the Rfc would help though ;) GoodDay (talk) 19:38, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for signing, GoodDay! I'm afraid I don't have an opinion one way or the other about the RfC, but surely this thread may get the attention of some "regulars"… — JFG ^talk 20:01, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

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 [12] 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)

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)

A BLP policy aide-mémoire

Has no place on this talk page. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:56, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
=== General BLP policy === We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. (WP:BLP.) Public-figure policy If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. (WP:PUBLICFIGURE.) Analogous advice from the Reporters Committee • Get independent corroboration. A source could have a vendetta against the subject and willfully or unintentionally misrepresent the facts for the source's own purposes. • Just because someone else said it does not mean that an organization cannot be sued for republishing it. (The First Amendment Handbook, 7th ed.) The 'conduit' fallacy A common misconception is that one who directly quotes a statement containing libelous allegations is immune from suit so long as the quoted statement is clearly attributed to the original speaker. This is not so. A republisher of a libel is generally considered just as responsible for the libel as the original speaker. That you are simply an accurate conduit for the statement of another is no defense. When the press reports that X has leveled an accusation against Y, it may be held to account not only for the truth of the fact that the accusation was made, but also for the steps taken to verify the truth of the accusation. (AP Stylebook, 2015 ed.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 13:06, 18 June 2017 (UTC) Dervorguilla, FYI, in the USA another law applies if the defamation is on the internet. The decision in Barrett v. Rosenthal (unfortunately) made it legal to republish libel on the internet. Only the original publisher of the libel can be punished. Republishers have free reign to totally damage other's reputations with completely false claims. Sad..... -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:56, 18 June 2017 (UTC) BTW, where did you get this idea? What RS, or even article here, explains it? Free speech in the USA allows accurately attributed documentation of false statements. Only if the repeater of libel "makes it their own" (and not on the internet) do they incur liability. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:01, 18 June 2017 (UTC) @Bullrangifer: No, see Gregg P. Leslie, ed., The First Amendment Handbook, 7th ed. (Arlington: The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, 2011), 3. "Publication occurs when information is ... communicated in any medium, from a newspaper to a website.... The media can be liable for the republication of a libelous statement made by another person or entity but quoted in a news article." Further guidance is available in The Associated Press Stylebook and Briefing on Media Law, 2017 ed. --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:53, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

General BLP policy

We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. (WP:BLP.)

Public-figure policy

If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. (WP:PUBLICFIGURE.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:19, 19 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)

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.

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)

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. [13] 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)