Talk:Donald Trump

Highlighted open discussions

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 Superseded by #15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 (Nov 2016, Dec 2016) (Superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)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 Superseded by #35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 (Sep 2016, February 2017, wording shortened per April 2017, upheld with July 2018) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019)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 Superseded by #17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 (Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017) (superseded by #17 since 2 April 2017)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)

Individual 1?

FYI, there's currently a redirection discussion here concerning what to do about the term Individual-1. At present, we have no explanation of the rationale for using this designation in legal circles. It seems like a properly-sourced sentence or two somewhere in this article would help. Thoughts? jxm (talk) 20:03, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Seems a bad idea ... a procedural trivia not good thing to make a redirect for, and a search would otherwise find instances without that. It’s likely just SOP practice to number people testified on, so many other cases would have a different meaning of “individual 1”. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:52, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, but no other people get covered so much as "Individual 1". In fact, this has become so widely covered we really should mention it in the article:

"Manafort, Cohen, and Individual 1 Are in Grave Danger" [1]

"The utterly lawless ‘Individual-1’" [2]

"Individual-1' memes are everywhere after 'substantial' prison time suggested for Cohen" [3]

"The walls are closing in on ‘individual #1’" [4]

"Prosecutors: Cohen committed crimes at the direction of ‘Individual-1’ aka Trump" [5]

"President ‘Individual-1’ Trump Hasn’t A Clue, But Twitter Wits Aim to School Him" [6]

"Trump, 'Individual 1,' is newly cast as center of special counsel's probe" [7]

And so on and so forth. Come on. I know, that you know, how to use google. So just type "Individual 1" into that search bar and let me know if someone OTHER THAN Trump, from all these "many other cases" pops up.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:09, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm dubious that a redirect would be necessary, but I think we could probably slip in a parenthetical aside somewhere in the special prosecutor section if necessary, eg. when talking about the legal documents. I suppose I can see it adding something in terms of someone coming her wondering why people keep referring to Trump as "individual 1". I wouldn't give it any more than a single mention of eg. "Trump, referred to as Individual 1 in these filings..." when discussing the court filings in question, though. --Aquillion (talk) 08:01, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I think that would be a good wording and a good way to handle it. There is no mystery about who Individual-1 is; one of the documents says he was later elected president. By the way the documents, and most sources quoting them, use a hyphen: Individual-1. Not a space and not a # sign. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:54, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Where in the article do we have information about his connection to the recent guilty pleas and filings? Or haven't we mentioned it yet? Offhand I couldn't find it. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:26, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

This seems just the viral flap du jour - no need or value to making a redirect, does not fit reasons in guide WP:POFR, suits reasons to delete WP:R#DELETE. We really need a 48 hour waiting period to prevent folks dumping their morning feed in here and starting these Chinese fire drills. Seems possible vandalism/snark to elevate something derogatory, sort of like making a redirect for “small hands” would be. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 18:44, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Individual 1 isn't derogatory, it's the name Trump is referred to in the court filings. PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 19:39, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Seems like undue trivia. If the purpose of adding some trivia about "Individual-1" is to justify a redirect, that's not very sound justification. Should we also redirect Client-1, Candidate-1, Woman-1, Woman-2, Taxi Operator-1, Taxi Operator-2, Bank-1, Bank-2, Bank-3, Attorney-1, Editor-1, Magazine-1, Chairman-1, Corporation-1, etc. (and their variants) to Trump's bio and retroactively add a mention of them? Politrukki (talk) 20:02, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I can't believe we never put anything in the article about the convictions of Manafort (with Trump hinting at a pardon) or Cohen (with Trump named as the person who told Cohen to break the law). We have it now. The Cohen paragraph identifies Individual-1 as Trump. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:56, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Disinformation

A new article from Glenn Kessler (of The Washington Post's The Fact Checker) says that on at least 14 occasions Trump has made "a deliberate effort to replace the truth with his own, far more favorable, version of it" and has thereby effectively engaged in disinformation. This seems like a very significant conclusion coming from a very reliable and prominent source, worthy of inclusion here in my view. Discuss. R2 (bleep) 18:17, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Possibly. I see that several other reliable sources have taken notice of the article. I wonder how long it will be before someone creates the redirect Bottomless Pinocchio.18:24, 10 December 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrX (talk • contribs)

isn't that just his opinion עם ישראל חי (talk) 18:35, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

no - MrX 🖋 18:41, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

yes, an opinion piece and/or his personal analysis summary. In other words, not something open for others to verify. An example of why that site is not strictly a "Fact Check". Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:51, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

No, it's not an "opinion" piece. In fact, it prominently says "Analysis" at the top and "interpretation of the news based on evidence, including data, as well as anticipating how events might unfold based on past events". Toodles.- MrX 🖋 21:25, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it’s an “opinion” piece when it’s expressing his personal views and/or WP:PRIMARY “analysis”. Those proclamations that it is “interpreting” the news and his “predictions” only seems to add to the evidence. His summary of what he asserts is his (private) analysis that is not visible, uses hyperbolic wording, makes up terms, misuses existing technical terminology is not him reporting on an outside event - it is just him stating his opinions. While I was interested that he seems counting each repetition as a separate ‘false’ item, the point is this term disinformation is just a hyperbolic or artistic bit here that does not match that terminology use or experts. But it doesn’t matter as this is just one article writer rant of no particular note or BLP impact, so fails WEIGHT and OFFTOPIC. I also think this sort of was previously covered in discussions about having the article say “false”. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:20, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

• Not really seeing how, where, or why we would add this to this article? Seems basically already covered by what is in there now. PackMecEng (talk) 18:47, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

There's a big difference between disinformation and false statements (misinformation). R2 (bleep) 19:08, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Eh, largely seems like semantics. PackMecEng (talk) 19:10, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

No offense but that's an extremely ignorant statement. I'd suggest you read a John Le Carre novel or two, or talk to anyone in the intelligence community. R2 (bleep) 19:38, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Ha, sure thing But seriously, in this situation they are equivalent enough to not make a notable difference between the two. PackMecEng (talk) 19:40, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely. It's even more significant than a source of this caliber saying Trump lied. We're talking about systematic lies here. "Disinformation" is translation of a Russian word and is historically closely tied to Soviet propaganda programs. The fact that Glenn Kessler would be dropping the d-bomb is highly significant. The "bottomless pinocchio" thing is already receiving substantial media attention. R2 (bleep) 19:47, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I think you need a new foil hat. PackMecEng (talk) 19:50, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Ha ha the intelligence community is known as spooks, not kooks. You need to read up. R2 (bleep) 19:57, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Been there done that, I'm good thanks. PackMecEng (talk) 20:01, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

User:PackMecEng There is a difference between Disinformation and Misinformation, and dismediation and so forth. WP went thru the flavors repeatedly in discussions for the label 'false'. Kessler is incorrectly using the term for where Trump said the same thing repeatedly and its something he criticizes. Most politicians would call that "staying on message" or "the spin", others might call it stable beliefs (however misguided they might be) -- but Kessler decided to call them disinformation. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:07, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I've reverted Soibangla's addition here of the term the Bottomless Pinocchio, and object to any re-addition without clear consensus. I feel it's clearly not important enough to include here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:42, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

It's a pretty stunning revelation, although not a surprising one. May I ask what would convince you that it should be added? - MrX 🖋 19:46, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

As long as the entirety of the story is "man with newspaper column invents new word for 'liar'" and nothing else, there is literally nothing (apart from an RFC that demonstrates consensus otherwise) that will cause me to support including this. If something relevant to Trump happens as a result, I'd reconsider. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:51, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

That WaPo found a need to create a new category suggests DUEness. O3000 (talk) 19:53, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

It's not a column. It's been edited and has the reputational backing of the Washington Post behind it. The Fact Checker has crack research team behind it and is about as reliable as it comes. R2 (bleep) 19:54, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I am going to dig in my heels here. This is trivia that certainly shouldn't be in this article; it should be in Veracity of statements by Donald Trump. We don't mention "Drumpf" here, we don't use the word "liar" in the article, there's no conceivable argument that will convince me based on the current information. This is the Post inventing a term of its own accord, it's not "covering" any event that has happened. They do not even claim that the term "Bottomless Pinocchio" is the product of research; they simply invented it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:58, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

The noteworthy fact is not the novel name "Bottomless Pinocchio". It's that Trump has apparently plumbed new lows in the extent and brazenness of his lying.- MrX 🖋 20:59, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

• User:Ahrtoodeetoo Don't be silly. (There really needs to be a 48 hour waiting period to stop just pasting whatever is on their feeds that morning.) Obviously a single-source opinion piece from Kessler does not merit a mention. Both not DUE without being prominently covered by numerous secondary sources and response from alternatives and President Trump, and OFFTOPIC since it lacks BLP significance of having been a Trump life choice or having made an enduring impact his life. It obviously has nothing like the significance of a single report from Mueller for example. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:18, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

You want additional reliable secondary sources? Here are some that have come out already: [8][9][10][11][12] (But obviously I'm being silly... Silly stupid droid, you really need to pipe down for 48 hours.) R2 (bleep) 21:38, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

how is it a secondary source if all it does is reference the original source עם ישראל חי (talk) 22:14, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand. They're all secondary sources, including the original Washington Post piece. They're talking about Trump's statements. I offered those links because Markbassett said we only have one source so we doesn't have enough media coverage to merit inclusion. No, we have at least 6 media outlets that have decided the subject is significant enough to publish on it. And that's just in the few hours since the Washington Post piece was published. R2 (bleep) 22:22, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

no you have 5 media outlets linking to a 6th who decided to call those statement disinformation עם ישראל חי (talk) 22:37, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I just accidentally bumped into this. I'm currently debating the same thing, so here's my opinion. A secondary source is perfectly legal to put only a quote from the primary source. By doing this it is interpreting the primary source, since we can expect that this being a secondary source , it would provide additional explanation if the quote from the primary source is misleading in any way. I didn't read the matter that is being discussed so I'm not taking anyones side on this.Bilseric (talk) 22:34, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

You guys no one is proposing adding any content based on primary sources. We're talking about adding content about Trump, citing a Washington Post article and/or any of the myriad other news articles that have been or will be published on the subject. The Washington Post article is not a primary source any more than any other newspaper article, either under our guidelines or under standard usage of the term. It is not an original material close to an event, it is not an account written by someone who was directly involved, it is not an insider's view of Trump's statements. We can decide to include in-text attribution if we wish, but that wouldn't magically transform an edited news article into a primary source. AmYisroelChai, I don't understand why you think a source somehow stops being a secondary source as soon as it references another source, or why it even matters. R2 (bleep) 22:46, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

The use of the new rating "bottomless Pinnichio" by a single fact-checker is not in itself significant enough to warrant a mention on the article, regardless of whether other news outlets consider the adoption of said rating by that single fact-checker to be newsworthy. This belongs on Veracity of statements by Donald Trump. --Hyperinsomniac (talk) 00:51, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I didn't suggest that we refer to bottomless Pinocchios, which don't think would be the appropriate emphasis for Trump's biography. We can draw from the source without referring to bottomless Pinocchios. That's why I highlighted certain language from the source that I thought was more significant. R2 (bleep) 01:12, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I think the main takeaway is that we have multiple reliable sources acknowledging that Trump is not just making false statements. They are saying he is deliberately and blatantly lying to deceive the American people in order to gain a political advantage. Moreover, he is doing so on a level so astonishing it no longer fits within a fact-checker's previously defined rating system. From an article standpoint, it means we can (at the very least) consider reassessing the weakness of "many of his public statements were controversial or false" in describing this new level of mendacity. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:29, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Who, besides the Washington Post, has used the term "disinformation"? As for "bottomless pinocchio", that is not worth a mention. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:58, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Here are some examples of other media outlets that have reported on this development and specifically referenced The Washington Post's description of Trump's falsehoods as disinformation: Washington Examiner, Columbia Journalism Review, The Hill, The Hill (again), The Fiscal Times, Arkansas Times, SFGate, NBC 9 Denver. R2 (bleep) 16:58, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

The Washington Examiner, the second The Hill, Arkansas Times, and NBC 9 Denver are straight no sources. The Columbia Journalism Review is just a list of stories of the week and even put disinformation in quotes. The Hill does the same, mentioning it once and again in quotes to keep it out of their voice. Same again with Fiscal Times and SF Gate. PackMecEng (talk) 17:50, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is. I don't think anyone is suggesting we cite those sources, nor do I think anyone is disputing the reliability of the Washington Post source. I think MelanieN just wanted to know the amount of media attention the disinformation bit is receiving. R2 (bleep) 18:02, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. These are not the heavy hitters among sources, and most of them make more of a deal out of "bottomless pinocchio" while mentioning disinformation only in passing, and mostly just in the WP's voice. IMO this should be in the "Veracity" article but not here. Not until it becomes a more widely used term to describe his approach. (This is a biography. Just as we have avoided using the terms "lie" and "liar", I think we would need much stronger sourcing to describe his use of language as comparable to that of the Soviet Union.) -- MelanieN (talk) 18:11, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Are you disputing the reliability of the Washington Post source, or the significance of the development? If you're disputing the significance of the development, as I believe you are, then whether the other sources are adopting "disinformation" in their own voice should be irrelevant. Put into policy terms, even if you view "disinformation" more as an unsubstantiated allegation by the Post than as a verifiable fact, then this is an allegation about the public figure that's been published by multiple reliable third-party sources. R2 (bleep) 18:36, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

My point was basically what MelanieN laid out. That the sources you list supporting it are not good for supporting disinformation. PackMecEng (talk) 18:27, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

• I wouldn't include this. Also, editors here who have an obvious bias and dislike for the President should be discounted accordingly. --Malerooster (talk) 17:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

How is this constructive? Please focus on the merits rather than the ad hominems. R2 (bleep) 18:03, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ahrtoodeetoo|R2, By giving my opinion that's how. Also, try not to use words like "ad hominems" when you don't understand what they mean. --Malerooster (talk) 23:00, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

It appears that the primary objections here are about the terms "bottomless pinocchio" and "disinformation." So would this language be acceptable?

In December 2018 The Washington Post fact-checker created a new category of falsehoods to represent three- or four-Pinocchio falsehoods that an individual has repeated more than twenty times. The paper found that Trump was the only current elected official whose statements met this criterion, with fourteen qualifying statements.

soibangla (talk) 18:45, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

It's better than nothing, but ugh. I'd only accept it if there was no other alternative the consensus could accept. It focuses too heavily on statistics and media behavior and totally sidesteps the source's main point. R2 (bleep) 19:15, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Make that “Kessler has slow news day, invents new term”... really nothing happened here, this is not a scholarly study by disinformation experts, it is just hyperbolic labels in an opinion piece of no note or BLP impact. Not DUE including and not in BLP topic. People really should stop casually posting their mornings feed and starting these things. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:30, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Nah, it's a legitimate effort to report what has heretofore been lacking in factchecking: the persistent repetition of falsehoods long after they have been repeatedly and decisively debunked. soibangla (talk) 19:34, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Markbassett, please stop personalizing the discussion. R2 (bleep) 19:46, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Kind of not possible to avoid naming Kessler when asserting this is an Opinion piece. Inventing his own term endless Pinocchios or making ‘reputation=disinformation effort’ out of President Trump having the same complaint with Mueller he reports 30 times seems obvious technically incorrect dramatic flair. (The ‘even after fact checkers say otherwise’ seems just a bit of hubris or self aggrandising on top.) It’s not like anything changed to suddenly make the ‘stay on message’ change so ‘the position is the same’ just got some dramatic relabelling. Though I actually have no idea if it was a slow news day that he came up with this. If you mean the mention of there needs to be a 48 hour waiting period and folks stop casually posting their mornings feed and starting a Chinese fire drill, that’s something I have said elsewhere before against TOOSOON and this is another instance of it. Though I actually have no idea if it was in your feed, the time between article seen to posted or even published to posted being measured in minutes is a Bad Thing people should stop doing. Just wait a couple days and see how it plays out. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 13:06, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Again, it's an analysis, not an opinion piece. You seem to disagree with it, but we follow reliable sources, not your contrary view. We don't have a 48 hour waiting period. WP:TOOSOON is an essay on article notability.- MrX 🖋 13:23, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Again, Opinion piece is the nature of this piece. Self-invented dramatic terms are not open to having a RS when only the WP:PRIMARY source has them. And a 48 hour waiting period might have saved this and other places where a too-casual short drop of ‘hey how about (link)’ winds up a time sink. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 13:38, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I have to agree with Markbassett here, they even list their fact checking section as a column.[13] Plus given the way it is written it is hard for a reasonable person to see it as anything but that. PackMecEng (talk) 14:31, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Talking about the invented term is a smokescreen to prevent this from being in the article. The term is not the key issue here. The salient fact (what should be in the article) is that after a rigorous analysis by a respected fact checker, it has been shown that Trump now lies on such an extraordinary level, beyond anything seen before, that the rating system used is no longer adequate to convey this level of mendacity. This is backed up by the other sources mentioned above as well. It's not the rating itself that's important, but the lying that precipitated the change. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:45, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

No smokescreen. No salient facts or analysis other than your own biased opinions. Time to move on. --Malerooster (talk) 15:18, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

@Malerooster: With all due respect, it is not my "opinion" (biased or otherwise). Multiple respected media organizations keep a running tab on the vast number of Trump's porky pies. Several editors agree that this is worthy of inclusion, so it is certainly worth discussing. Why are you opposed to discussion? Could this be the problem? -- Scjessey (talk) 18:11, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Just a reminder that the topic is the Kessler article, and *its* status. Have we gotten past that now (a couple days later) it has demonstrated getting little notice or impact so is not DUE a mention in the BLP ? We can continue discussing the other points of ways it is and isn't an Opinion piece and WP:PRIMARY, but it could get a mention in the Veracity article anyway and none here so is that just an academic point ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:41, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I find it fascinating that some consider the edit suitable for the Veracity article (186 page views yesterday) but not for this article (45,180 views yesterday) or the Presidency article (2,861 views yesterday). soibangla (talk) 23:10, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

You’d have to ask powerenwiki why he suggested having it, but I would guess it’s about TOPIC of the three. This this article is for what is biographically significant, not a fit; Presidency is for Presidential event or action, not a fit; but Veracity is supposed to be how commentators and fact-checkers have described the Rate of Falsehoods. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:31, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I think it's obvious why a sentence about a newspaper column (which everyone has already forgotten about) relating to the veracity of Donald Trump's statements might be DUE at Veracity of statements by Donald Trump but not in his overall biography. I am incapable of explaining why that is any further; if you genuinely don't understand I'm sure several other editors can explain it to you. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:35, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Not an improvement and undue. PackMecEng (talk) 19:40, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Seeking some consensus to add this quote

Hoping to preclude any conflicts, I think this (or a version thereof) should be included on the page, and am seeking support for that. Opinions?

In sentencing the president’s former fixer, federal judge William H. Pauley III said in open court that Trump had directed his then-lawyer to commit a federal felony. This was in some respects a formality, a confirmation of a conclusion that prosecutors and the United States Probation Office had reached last week. But while it might have been a formality, it was important. No one in that courtroom, including the judge, disagreed that Trump directed Cohen to commit crimes.

— Renato Mariotti, "Did Trump Just Move a Step Closer to Unindicted Co-conspirator?", Politico (December 12, 2018)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindenfall (talk • contribs) 22:43, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

That would be overkill. We already say Cohen testified that he had made the illicit payments at the direction of a candidate for federal office - a reference to Trump and Cohen said that he had made the false statements on behalf of Trump, who was identified as "Individual-1" in the court documents and In their sentencing memo, prosecutors said that Cohen had paid the women for their silence "with the intent to influence the 2016 presidential election" and that "he acted in coordination with and at the direction of Individual-1”. That’s plenty for this biography. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:34, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Yup, unnecessary per Melanie. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:36, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I had not noticed the "Individual-1" references the other day, relegated to a sub-sub-section: 'underkill', as it were. Considering the historical significance of the matter, I would think it prudent to more prominently feature this outcome, perhaps by reference in the lead paragraphs, whatever may lay ahead for this president. Lindenfall (talk) 20:54, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

We do not yet know the "historical significance" of this. The quote not neutral. O3000 (talk) 20:59, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

WP should present in proportion to WEIGHT, and this does not currently have much WEIGHT. Whether or not it will be noted later is WP:CRYSTAL speculation not mattering to what coverage is now. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:46, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

MOS issues

@UpdateNerd: wishes to decapitalize President of the United States in this bio article & all other US president bio articles, as well their infoboxes. He wishes to do the same with Vice President of the United States at Mike Pence & all other US vice president bio articles. GoodDay (talk) 02:01, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Per MOS:JOBTITLES, and not all instances; in fact in many cases it needs to be capitalized. The MoS explains that when the President is being referred to as someone's title it is capitalized, as opposed to the office of president where it is lower case, except when the latter is the subject. UpdateNerd (talk) 02:16, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Prior discussions here in January and in November. Related open RfC here. As seen in the January discussion, the consistency argument, combined with personal-opinion I just don't like it arguments, will forever prevent a local change here. MoS (JOBTITLES) alone is not sufficient in this case; you will also need a community consensus to follow MoS. Can't imagine how it's useful to raise this locally, yet again. But sure, I'll restate my support for JOBTITLES compliance anyway. If this amounts to anything, we'll add it to the list of related discussions. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:46, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:MOS explicitly states in its lead that "if any contradiction arises, this page always has precedence," and therefore trumps the above willy-nilly arguments against it. UpdateNerd (talk) 08:00, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@Zingarese, your objection really doesn't conform to WP:JOBTITLES. Is it just because he's the current president in office that you think (in my opinion mistakenly) that the title is being denoted? If it were phrased: "Donald Trump is serving as the 45th President", then it would be the title being invoked per the MoS. UpdateNerd (talk) 23:12, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

@UpdateNerd: I took a closer look at MOS:JOBTITLES, and have to concede that yes, you are correct, it should in principle be lowercase due to the modifier. My reasoning that the sentence was denoting the title because of the link to President of the United States. I'm happy to reverse my reversion if you wish. Zingarese talk · contribs 17:40, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

@Zingarese:, to avoid the appearance of edit-warring, I think that'd be the appropriate action. Make sure you mention explaining the earlier bit of confusion on the talk page. Thanks, UpdateNerd (talk) 19:23, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

@Mandruss, I'm aware of the rules barring edit-warring, but the MOS is quite clear on both how to capitalize titles & its precedence over localized consensus (opinion). In the interest of avoiding bureaucratic hurdles per WP:IAR, I made my rule-ignoring reversion. UpdateNerd (talk) 01:53, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

@UpdateNerd: I've been around this article for about two years and AFAIK the ArbCom editing restrictions trump everything else. Everything. Else. You simply can't re-revert on a content disagreement. People who don't get that usually end up blocked. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:01, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

It's not a content disagreement; it's a direct and obvious contradiction of the MoS. UpdateNerd (talk) 02:04, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

You have my advice. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:07, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

• Let's cut it out with the reverting until a consensus is reached here. The article will literally be fine either way.

  I looked at MOS:JOBTITLES myself and the examples there make it obvious that lowercase is correct. I wonder however if the wikilinks make a difference...the link to President of the United States makes it look like a title that should be capitalized. Consider the effect of wikilinks in the following table:

Table illustrating effect of Wikilinks

Donald John Trump is the 45th and current President of the United States.	N Not MOS:JOBTITLES compliant Y Looks right
Donald John Trump is the 45th and current president of the United States.	Y MOS:JOBTITLES compliant N Looks wrong
Donald John Trump is the 45th and current president of the United States.	Y MOS:JOBTITLES complient Y Looks right
Donald John Trump is the 45th and current President of the United States.	N Not MOS:JOBTITLES compliant N Looks wrong

Proposals for replacement (added layer)

Donald John Trump is the 45th and current president of the United States.	Option 5 (suggested below by User:UpdateNerd)
Donald John Trump is the 45th and current president of the United States.	Option 6 (suggested below by User:UpdateNerd)
Donald John Trump is the 45th and current president of the United States.	Option 7 (suggested by User:Mandruss)

Obviously #3 would be nice except the link needs to be to POTUS and not US. ~Awilley (talk) 21:45, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Any MOS compliant version is fine, but it's weird not to link to the President of the United States article. You could add another option: Donald John Trump is the 45th and current president of the United States. But option #2 above is probably simpler. UpdateNerd (talk) 21:57, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Heh, I never thought of that. That could work, especially since this article doesn't currently link to United States (just checked using a "what links here" tool). Let's see what others have to say. ~Awilley (talk) 22:10, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

@UpdateNerd, I just did a quick scan of the previous 10 presidents and ALL of them have it capitalized, including Nixon, who was the example used in MOS:JOBTITLES. It seems this is bigger than just a LOCALCONSENSUS thing. ~Awilley (talk) 22:23, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

That's because people keep reverting it because they aren't familiar with the MOS. They should all be consistent, not just with each other, but also the MOS. I wouldn't press the point so much if the MOS didn't state its own precedence in all cases of contradiction. UpdateNerd (talk) 01:35, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

@Awilley, that's the point I tried to make in my first comment in this section. The difference is that I don't give much legitimacy to those other occurrences, which I'm certain are less the result of rigorous evidence-based examination of the issue than editors' vague opinions of what looks right to them. Wikipedia simply must allow for correction after we've gotten little things wrong in a large number of articles—it's impossible to get everything right initially—and your reasoning precludes (or seriously impedes) that correction. See my related comment here. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:48, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I'll note that option 5 violates both MOS:EGG (president) and MOS:OVERLINK (United States). Options 3 and 4 violate OVERLINK (United States). ―Mandruss ☎ 03:04, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree that #5 presents overlinking, which I only suggested for the sake of argument. However, I have another alternative. Since '45th' already links to the list of presidents, why not simply have it read: "Donald John Trump is the 45th and current president of the United States." — Preceding unsigned comment added by UpdateNerd (talk • contribs) 10:22, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Added as #6. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:51, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Methinks the MOS stating "its own precedence in all cases of contradiction" sounds a bit tyrannical. That's a classic:

1. The MOS is always right.
2. When the MOS is not right, please refer to point 1.

We should exercise editorial judgment here. I'm fine with upper or lowercase "p" provided that we don't try to cram a link to the United States, so I guess I'd support options 1 and 2. And for what it's worth, I don't feel that option 2 "looks wrong" at all. It just looks unusual in Serious Articles About Very Important Politicians Who Rule The World. Readers won't mind. — JFG ^talk 11:22, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Whether one favors p or P, we're talking about a grammatical usage rule that shouldn't vary between cases. In this quasi-professional encyclopedia, the goal is consistency on elements of style, which is the point of all manuals of style and their sole reason for existence. That concept is directly counter to a call for editorial judgment, which ensures inconsistency. Yes, for things like this, MoS should always be right unless one can make a case for a local exception to it, something that sets the local case apart from almost all others. This is not such a case.
If this hasn't had a full hearing at community level, it needs one, but until then we should comply with the guideline we have. My understanding and opinion is that an adequate community level hearing has taken place and the existing guideline reflects its outcome, which settles the issue for me. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:55, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Even after seeing my other suggestions added as options, #2 still looks the best. It is following normal, widely accepted grammar and MoS guidelines (which just happen to be ignored across the full spread of relevant articles), and follows the most logical linking. UpdateNerd (talk) 15:37, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

• I personally prefer the status quo. More relevant, however, is that from the past discussions it doesn't look like there will be consensus to make a change here. I therefore suggest we move on to bigger and better things. R2 (bleep) 22:14, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
• 3 complies with the manual of style. Why would any other option ever even be considered? If we wish to rewrite the rules of capitalization, we start by getting the style changed, not by seeking an exception that could easily send the message that this man's entry distills a lack of education.--~TPW 16:56, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

  Option 3 violates MOS:OVERLINK (United States), as stated above. It would be odd to ignore that in an MoS-compliance argument, no? ―Mandruss ☎ 16:59, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

• Comment unless this is a universal change which would include all past presidents and vice presidents it should not be changed and this is not the place to get consensus on such a change as it affects multiple pages the probable place to get consensus on that would be the WP:MOS talk page עם ישראל חי (talk) 17:08, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

  There is no need to discuss at the MOS page unless one is trying to change it. However, I started conversations at President of the United States and Richard Nixon (which is the example used by the MOS), and also attempted edits at George Washington, John Adams, and Barack Obama. My edits of Joe Biden and Mike Pence have stuck, so it won't be a total surprise when other articles get changed. We are certainly not going to discuss this at all 45 president and related vice president articles, so it is most logical to work out consensus on this page—that of the current president. UpdateNerd (talk) 01:50, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

  I fail to see how it's "most logical" to require a local consensus to comply with a community consensus, and in fact that is contrary to WP:CONLEVEL, part of a Wikipedia policy. The missing piece here is policy enforcement, which under our current system can only be done by admins. Try taking something like this to WP:ANI as a WP:DE complaint, and watch it quickly become an uncontrolled out-of-venue rehash of the guideline, another unproductive skirmish in the ongoing MoS war, and so on—everything but policy enforcement—that consumes tons of editor time and goes exactly nowhere. I find it very hard to deny that this system is completely broken. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:28, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 December 2018

Padmay101 (talk) 19:04, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Change his name to where his middle name is included

 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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Zingarese talk · contribs 19:07, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

@allofyou I’m gonna barge in here and say, I have to agree with Awilley on the third example provided by them in the template. I also agree with UpdateNerd that the MoS should be followed, but for the sake of compromise, I’d suggest to Mandruss that you also are right about the consensus of the people, but as with guidance vs opinions, in the case of this particular debate, I would suggest you attempt to get the MoS guideline updated to allow that consensus to overrule, otherwise someone has a lot of editing to do for the lower case p requirements. My two cents. Cheers and good day to everyone! Merry Christmas too if that’s your thing. Sirsentence (talk) 14:51, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Politifact as external link?

I noticed that Obama has it, and I think it would be a decent EL here too, Donald Trump's file. Opinions? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:58, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

FYI, linked in the body of Veracity of statements by Donald Trump, near the bottom of this section. Obama doesn't have a veracity article, hence the problem with comparisons between presidents' BLPs. Obama is an apple and Trump is, erm, an orange. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:25, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Those are links to WP-articles, but your point still stands since they are in the EL-section anyway. I'll buy the sub-article-argument, and now I'd like an orange (a literal one). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:39, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm referring to current ref [85] in that section. Same URL as your link above. But you're right, it's also in EL there. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:46, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:15, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Though there have been exceptions

I propose changing the last sentence of the "False statements" subsection to add the bolded language as follows:

• From:

In general, news organizations have been hesitant to label these statements as "lies".

• To:

In general, news organizations have been hesitant to label these statements as "lies", though there have been exceptions.

References
References

Apologies for the citation overkill, I'd be fine with reducing the number of citations. But I want people to see how many news organizations have used the word "lie" in the last few months. I'm sure there are more. I tried to cull out the opinion sources. R2 (bleep) 18:07, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. "though there have been exceptions" is redundant with "in general". ―Mandruss ☎ 18:39, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

My broader point is that the current wording doesn't seem to reflect the weight of the substantial number of news organizations that have started labeling some of Trump's statements as lies. How about: "Most news organizations have avoided labeling these statements as 'lies.'" R2 (bleep) 19:46, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I understand your point and it's hard to find just the right nuance, especially considering that "just the right nuance" is almost entirely a subjective matter of one's political bias. I would write: "Many news organizations have labeled these statements as 'lies.'"—but I recognize that that's a product of my philosophical beliefs and value system. Policy really gives us no way to decide such things objectively, and lacking that objective compass I usually abstain. I do take a stand against clearly poor writing as in your initial proposal. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:58, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Why not opine on whether "Most news organizations have avoided labeling these statements as 'lies'" is an improvement over the current wording? Of course there's an element of subjectivity... but we'll never get anything done if editors are too afraid to share their opinions. R2 (bleep) 05:20, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

As I indicated, there is far more than "an element" of subjectivity. The above may be slightly more concise and it eliminates a comma, but I see little difference in meaning between it and the status quo. That's my opinion. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:29, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose-ish. As Mandruss says, this is implicit with "in general" -- but also to specifically say so seems a bit of OR. The reluctance is a topic of multiple independent RS, such as BBC, WSJ, TheStar, and Politico. (During the campaign it was more portrayed that Hilary was the "congenital liar" and Trump was a bit of a nutter - e.g. Politico) There is not a similar bunch of RS focused on what the exceptions are or various explanations why sometimes things are called a "lie". So there are times I can see it is done, but to say "sometimes they do" would be OR. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:58, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. The problem with those sources is that 4 out of 5 of them are from January 2017 or before, when the media was much more hesitant to call some of Trump's statements lies. The 5th one, from The Star, was from May 2018, and it confirms that the media does sometimes call Trump's statements lies. In fact, it uses the word "sometimes." If we were to follow that source's example we'd be saying, "News organizations have sometimes avoided labeling these statements as 'lies.'" I'm proposing a more modest change. R2 (bleep) 21:54, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Why not replace the word "statements" with "lies"?--Jack Upland (talk) 07:59, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Ahrtoodeetoo The Star article is about why false items should not be called a lie. So mostly saying logical reasons why “false” is the proper overall term and “lie” is just an emotional or partisan wrong term. The earlier WSJ article also explained that too. One might consider paraphrase saying “generally are not viewed as lies by the media” or “false covering hyperbole, misstatements, misconceptions, misinformed, excessive spin, and lies” instead of “media is hesitant to call them lies” is more properly the sense of cites, and the WEIGHT of coverage. But the Star does not literally say “Sometimes they do” - making that conclusion is OR. Having to work at justifying it should be telling you it’s OR. The article larger thread is on “false”, the antipathy of Trump and media (I see false claims and opinionating both ways) over the amount of the word “false” said on Trump. Coverage about words the media doesn’t say is the odd part. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:17, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Other editors will have to review the Star article for themselves. For what it's worth the same reporter wrote another story with the headline, "Donald Trump has spent a year lying shamelessly. It hasn’t worked." In that story the reporter wrote that "lying has been the most consistent feature of his presidency." R2 (bleep) 17:50, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Again, there are times I see it is done, but to say “sometimes they do” would be OR because it’s not an observation the RS are generally making. The WEIGHT is on the amount of “controversial or false”, and minor weight on why they say that - a ‘hesitancy’ to use a word will make it low weight. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 08:17, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Our statement that news organizations are hesitant to say lies may be outdated, as noted here by R2. Our references are from early in his presidency. More recent reporting may have been less reluctant to use the L-word. It's worth discussing. MelanieN alt (talk) 14:57, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Certainly news organizations are more inclined to say "lies" than they used to be. Perhaps something like this would be better:

News organizations have been less reluctant to label these statements as "lies" after an initial hesitancy.

Thoughts? -- Scjessey (talk) 15:41, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

References

It's outdated and it's really not what the sources are about - they're about his frequent lying, and note that in the past news organizations may have been hesitant to label it as such in passing or as commentary on the broader theme.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't think we should be saying anything about how news sources have changed how they treat Trump's statements without at least one secondary source to back it up. R2 (bleep) 19:15, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

• User:MelanieN Just more OR contrary to RS. Many RS say “false”, many RS say why that is the proper general term for misconceptions and misstatements and many other things, and they also say lie is emotional or partisan phrasing not objectively appropriate. The RS saying false explained why lie is improper. They came at the same time as the larger coverage of false, so they are the matching explanation. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:59, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

"Lie" is not improper. "Lie" is used when someone intentionally tells a falsehood, which is absolutely what Trump has done on many occasions, according to reliable sources. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:48, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

In the RS explanations from BBC, WSJ, The Star, etcetera say how they decided it was inappropriate by their judgement and policy, thus the section is on “False” statements. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 08:31, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

That's what they used to say. Now "lie" is pretty much the common term. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:50, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

The Chris Cillizza article above offers a very clear explanation of why “lies” may be appropriate for what Trump does. Other articles making the case for both the term “lie” and the increasing frequency of same: The New Yorker, Vanity Fair. But these are op-eds, not news articles. On the other hand, here’s a news article from last August, reiterating that news organizations are hesitant to say “lie”. I’m inclined to say we should keep the wording we have. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:38, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Description of Mueller inquiry in lead

A few days ago, I added a sentence to the lead describing the current status of the Mueller investigation. It was promptly reverted for reasons that aren't entirely clear to me. (After all, if someone's honest objection is the lack of coverage in the article body, then they can add such coverage or ask me to do so rather than reverting. I'm also a little bemused that one drily factual sentence is considered a "long tirade", but I digress).

The rationale for my edit is simple. Currently, the lead mentions the existence of Mueller's investigation and then parrots Trump's dismissal of it as a "witch hunt". That doesn't seem like a useful or encyclopedic summary. Instead, I'd propose a single factual sentence describing the investigation's outcomes, which can be updated as needed. Assuming that anyone objects to this proposal, could they clarify their reasoning? MastCell ^Talk 00:10, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I think your addition was a bit long for such an overpacked lead section; however, I do think we should have something for the reasons you stated. I'd support a short sentence saying how many indictments and convictions there have been, and perhaps saying how many of those were involved in Trump's election campaign. R2 (bleep) 00:27, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm sort of confused by the idea that this one sentence makes the lead too long, because it doesn't seem to stand up to analysis. The lead of this article, with my addition, had 536 words. By comparison, the lead of Barack Obama has 641 words; that of George W. Bush, 544 words; and that of Bill Clinton, 573 words. Hell, even losing candidates have comparable or longer leads: John McCain, 548 words; Mitt Romney, 547 words; Hillary Clinton, 489 words. The length of this article's lead seems entirely appropriate when looking at comparable biographies. And while I favor making our writing as lean as possible, this is hardly the least relevant sentence in the lead; for example, I'm not sure why it's necessary to parrot Trump's description of the investigation as a "witch hunt" in place of a factual description of the investigation's results. If word count is truly a burning concern, then maybe replace the "witch hunt" sentence with a factual description? MastCell ^Talk 00:41, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I wasn't saying it made the lead too long. What I meant is that there's a lot of highly noteworthy, concise content packed into the lead section, and the listing of which specific members of the Trump team were convicted seemed relatively undue. The listing of convictions of people who aren't mentioned elsewhere in Trump's biography (Gates, Papadopoulos) seems a little coatracky. R2 (bleep) 00:55, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

User:MastCell - usually LEAD changes here need to be TALK before doing. That one really is not a big part of the article or about Trumps BLP material of his life events and family, so I don’t think it fits anyway. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:28, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Something like "The investigation has led to guilty pleas from or convictions of a number of Trump associates." would be an appropriately short summary. The issue would not be with the overall length of the lead but that the sentence you added gave the convictions far too much UNDUE weight relative to other matters of Trump's life. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:35, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

There should be something in there about it, and User:Galobtter's suggestion is a good one.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:44, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Galobtter and Volunteer Marek. R2 (bleep) 05:46, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Added; this associated press article well supports such a statement: "Five people in Trump’s orbit have pleaded guilty to charges in the continuing Mueller probe." Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:42, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

That is highly misleading. The lead now falsely implies that some Trump associates have pleaded guilty of coordinating with Russia in election meddling. Can you explain how that is not a BLP violation? The charges and convictions of Trump campaign officials are related to "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation" and no Trump associate has been charged with colluding with Russia. Politrukki (talk) 08:55, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, it is impossible for someone to be charged with collusion since "collusion is not a crime"™ (by itself, though collusion can constitute multiple crimes, see this article). Do you have any suggestions on how to clarify that? I changed it to "investigation and its offshoots". Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:17, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Quick suggestion: "The investigation has led to guilty pleas from a number of Trump associates who were not charged with coordinating in Russia's efforts." I specifically used the word "collusion" because I had this source at hand. It is marked as "Analysis" (see WP:NEWSORG), but I believe we can use the source, both in the lead and body, in given context without treating "none were charged with colluding with Russians to affect the 2016 election" as an opinion that should be attributed to its authors. Politrukki (talk) 09:53, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

That's a quite good source (and up to date too, which is good since new charges and indictments seem to come regularly); I clarified the sentence to "The investigation has led to guilty pleas not relating to coordination with Russia from a number of Trump associates." Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:11, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Though "guilty pleas not relating to coordination with Russia" is not exactly consistent with sources – we don't know whether any of the information Trump associates have provided to Mueller in exchange for more lenient sentence is related to possible coordination – that's a suitable compromise for now. Politrukki (talk) 10:44, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh yeah, good point. I changed it to The investigation has led to guilty pleas not for charges of coordination with Russia from a number of Trump associates. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:50, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

This is moving in the right direction. I took the liberty to improve the grammar and clarify the scope of charges, by changing the text to: The investigation has led to guilty pleas by a number of Trump associates for charges unrelated to Russia's efforts. I believe this accurately describes the known facts. — JFG ^talk 11:49, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

No, no, no. Boxing this into "Russian efforts" is hugely misleading. Michael Flynn and Maria Butina come to mind. Also, the investigations are ongoing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrX (talk • contribs) 12:50, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

What about them? Flynn was not accused of providing any help to Russians in their attempts at electoral interference, only of lying to the FBI about a post-election conversation with the Russian ambassador. Butina's case is totally unrelated to Trump. — JFG ^talk 13:00, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

"Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to FBI agents about his December 2016 conversations with Sergei Kislyak, then Russia’s ambassador in Washington, about U.S. sanctions imposed on Moscow by the administration of Trump’s Democratic predecessor Barack Obama."
— Reuters

"Butina was then involved with an unsuccessful effort to organize a meeting between Torshin and Trump at an NRA convention in May 2016. Instead, she and Torshin briefly interacted with Donald Trump Jr., the president’s son, at the event, according to documents turned over to Congress."
— The Washington Post

Do you understand now why the previous wording is misleading? We start by saying "links" and then end by saying "coordination", as if to tell our readers "show's over—nothing to see here". This is a far broader investigation than Trump coordinating with Russia.- MrX 🖋 13:14, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

My version is not misleading at all. It states that "a number of Trump associates" did plead guilty to "charges unrelated to Russia's efforts", which is absolutely correct. Flynn's conversations with Kislyak were deemed totally legal; he was only charged for lying to FBI interviewers, which he explains by not remembering he had discussed a particular topic – again the discussion itself was part of his job and is not contested in court. Butina was not a Trump associate, so whatever she did is irrelevant in this article. Your version is misleading by omission and inference. — JFG ^talk 13:24, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

One thing I'd say is that unrelated is different from "not for" and only the latter is supported by the WaPo source above. Flynn did not get charged for the conversations but his charges are still related to the conversations. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:37, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Flynn's charge is only "related" in so far as he talked to a Russian official within his own official duties; there's nothing nefarious here. Flynn went down because he lied to the FBI (for which he got criminally charged) and he apparently lied to the Vice President (for which he first got fired). Let us not forget that the jail-worthy criminal charges against Manafort and Cohen are totally unrelated to Russia's efforts. If we focus only on Flynn's process crime (which itself is a post-election affair, so is indeed unrelated to any election interference), we're missing the meat of the matter and we are gravely misleading readers. — JFG ^talk 13:45, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Cohen's is not "totally unrelated" though the bulk of it is of course about Stormy. There's one charge of lying related to Trump Tower Moscow; however I agree that since the charges are pretty disparate we do need something about their relation to collusion. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:52, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

The bulk of Cohen's charges involve his tax fraud and taxi business, and that's why he's getting serious jail time and several million dollars in financial penalties. The Stormy affair is comparatively minor (for Cohen, but possibly major for Trump). His lies about Trump Tower Moscow are even more minor. — JFG ^talk 14:22, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding me. Taxi fraud? What sources are you reading that say Trump paying off Stormy is minor, for anyone?- MrX 🖋 21:10, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Anyways, I think we need to get back to RS; the one WaPo source we have says "none were charged with colluding with Russians to affect the 2016 election" which I'm not sure entirely supports the "unrelated" phrase you have. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:52, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

That's a fair criticism, and I think the current text properly addresses the perceived issue. Had I just written "guilty pleas by a number of Trump associates for unrelated charges", the reader could legitimately wonder why we call the charges "unrelated" in bulk; unrelated to Mueller's probe? unrelated to Trump? that would be wrong. This is why I specified "for charges unrelated to Russia's efforts", which clearly refers to the scope of the investigation that we just defined as "any links and/or coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russian government in its election interference" in the immediately preceding sentence. This is in my opinion an accurate paraphrase of the WaPo statement, namely that "none were charged with colluding with Russians to affect the 2016 election". — JFG ^talk 14:16, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I've been looking at this and overall I'm okay with the wording as of now (i.e yours). Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:36, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

The investigation has led to guilty pleas by a number of Trump associates for charges not about collusion with Russia.? I think that is supported by WaPo. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:01, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

At the same time that makes it seem like we're saying "NO COLLUSION" when there is more and more evidence on that collusion. So I'd think we'd need to include the fact that they provided information on links between the Trump campaign and Russia as a result of the plea deals, but then that'd make the whole thing too long.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:14, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Odd since the truth is the opposite of that.--MONGO (talk) 14:18, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Source? Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:27, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

[14]--MONGO (talk) 18:57, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Three months ago, Bob Woodward said he can find any collusion so that's now the truth? Perhaps someone should let Mueller know.- MrX 🖋 21:00, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What is "hugely misleading" is the version you modified, because the reader is now led to believe that "a number of Trump associates" pled guilty to helping "the Russian government in its election interference" (because the text omits saying what those people were actually charged with). I strongly object, and would revert if I were sure of not violating the new rules. @Awilley: that's a good test case: am I allowed to revert MrX's edit[15] under the "replied to user's objections on talk" provision, or would my first edit[16] iterating on the text (with reference to this discussion) be considered "challenged" by MrX, and therefore impossible to restore until further consensus develops? Am I allowed to challenge MrX's change in turn by removing the whole sentence (return to statu quo ante) until a version emerges that is acceptable to all parties? — JFG ^talk 13:17, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

@JFG Having only glanced at the situation on my way out the door, it looks to me like MrX was performing a wholesale revert on Gallobter's addition that you had happened to reword along the way. Since you don't seem to have used your 1RR yet, and since the working talkpage consensus is 3:1 for having some caveat, I'd say you're safe to do a revert or partial revert of MrX's edit. (Note I could be wrong in my assumptions about any of the above, I've literally only had time to look at it for a minute or two.) ~Awilley (talk) 13:42, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I have reverted to the version including the proviso about criminal charges being "unrelated to Russia's efforts".[17] I do welcome further discussion and amendment of the text. — JFG ^talk 13:57, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Galobtter's suggestion (way above) is a good start. It will be challenging to be more detailed because of the extent and diversity of the crimes, but we will probably eventually have to allow for criminal convictions that don't arise from sweet plea deals.- MrX 🖋 12:39, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

• For what it is worth I agree with the version JFG reinstated here. " The investigation has led to guilty pleas by a number of Trump associates for charges unrelated to Russia's efforts." I think that is in a good place for the lead without going to deep. PackMecEng (talk) 14:05, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

  I agree with JFG edit as well, and might take it a step further that guilt by association is an insinuation that is borderline BLP violating, so not sure any of this belongs here.--MONGO (talk) 14:11, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

  Perhaps I'm not being clear, so let me try again. These two adjacent sentences "After Trump dismissed FBI Director James Comey, the Justice Department appointed Robert Mueller as Special Counsel to investigate "any links and/or coordination" between the Trump campaign and the Russian government in its election interference. The investigation has led to guilty pleas by a number of Trump associates for charges unrelated to Russian interference." implicitly narrow the scope of the investigation in a misleading way. According to our own article, "The ongoing Special Counsel investigation is a United States law enforcement and counterintelligence investigation of the Russian government's efforts to interfere, with primary focus on the 2016 presidential election. This investigation includes any possible links or coordination between Donald Trump's presidential campaign and the Russian government, "and any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation." In addition, the scope of the investigation reportedly includes potential obstruction of justice by Trump and others." The "any matters" part is important, and at least partially negated by the sentence that Galobtter and JFG added.- MrX 🖋 15:11, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

  Would After Trump dismissed FBI Director James Comey, the Justice Department appointed Robert Mueller as Special Counsel to investigate "any links and/or coordination" between the Trump campaign and the Russian government in its election interference and any matters arising from that. fix that issue? Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:17, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

  How much detail do we want to go into for the lead? If the reader would like more information on what they are investigating they can just click the blue link to the article about it. PackMecEng (talk) 19:07, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

  Enough so that the reader has a fundamental understanding of the subject without having to consult other articles.- MrX 🖋 21:05, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

  @Galobtter: Yes that would help along with my edit to the effect that the investigation is ongoing.- MrX 🖋 21:05, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Too much detail and weight in my view. The fact that we'd be quoting primary source materials suggests that we'd be getting too far in the weeds for an article of this scope. R2 (bleep) 23:19, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I strenuously object to language like "unrelated to Russia's efforts" or "unrelated to Russian interference." These are unsourced and patently false and echo a partisan talking point. When you're convicted of lying about your contacts with Russians who were interfering in the election, then your conviction is related to Russian interference. R2 (bleep) 21:32, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

You are mistaken, all the sources and information are found in the body. PackMecEng (talk) 21:54, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the direct connection. Please provide links to the specific sources here. R2 (bleep) 22:03, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

You are welcome to do your own legwork. PackMecEng (talk) 22:49, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I am, but you are not welcome to disrupt the consensus-building process by making bold statements and then refusing to back them up when asked. R2 (bleep) 23:07, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh please, I am not here to do your homework for you. You disputed what several people agreed on and then demanded things from others. Not how it works, it is in the article. PackMecEng (talk) 23:17, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I honestly don't know how to do what you're calling"my homework." You said there are sources cited in the article that says all of the convictions were unrelated to Russian interference. I seriously don't know how to find these mysterious sources, because there's no sentence in the body that says that. Do you expect me to read through each of the cited sources one by one? R2 (bleep) 05:34, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Ahrtoodeetoo, we should definitely use "guilty plea" over "convictions" - the AP summarizes these as "Five people in Trump’s orbit have pleaded guilty to charges in the continuing Mueller probe." and these have largely been (except for Manafort) guilty pleas and so the version you inserted is false as there haven't been a "number of" convictions of Trump associates. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:43, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

How is "a number of convictions" false? A guilty plea is a type of conviction. R2 (bleep) 05:37, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

WTF? In judicial proceedings, you are first suspected, then indicted for various charges, to which you may plead guilty or innocent, then you are tried, and finally you are convicted or set free. Your comment does not make any sense whatsoever. — JFG ^talk 06:59, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

There's a definite distinction between plea deals and convictions (by a jury) which is important to note, especially as the deals are also providing information to the investigation. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:18, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I take exception to JFG's "no sense whatsoever" comment, but ok, technically a guilty plea doesn't turn into a conviction until sentencing, so I'm ok with using "guilty pleas" instead of "convictions." R2 (bleep) 08:34, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

User:PackMecEng The recent add “The ongoing investigations have led to a conviction of a number of Trump associates.” is misstated, it gives a false impression that they were guilty to coordination with Russian election interference. My points earlier also still apply: this should be removed as practice is TALK and get consensus before edits to lead per WP:ONUS; that associate names/status is too small a portion of this article to suit WP:LEAD; and that an associates case/status is not a direct part of Trumps BLP a major part of Trump life or his choices so is a bit WP:OFFTOPIC. May have minor mention here, but should not be in the lead. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:43, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

So far, I count six editors who support the more precise wording, with only two preferring the shorter ambiguous version. I have restored the long version accordingly, and linked to our article specifying the aforementioned criminal charges. The article now says "The ongoing investigation has led to guilty pleas by several Trump associates for criminal charges unrelated to Russia's efforts." — JFG ^talk 14:14, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Should the Special prosecutor page be linked to Special Counsel to let readers know what it is?

I originally included a link to Special prosecutor without removing (or changing) anything else,[18] and it reverted because of what I assume was a misunderstanding that I removed a link from the article.[19] I am going to assume it was just a misunderstanding and not a case of editors being revert-happy. In any case, it is okay if it is decided not to be linked. Keiiri (talk) 04:41, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Keiiri - that edit looks good to me. If you think someone felt it was misunderstanding, yOu might try again with the word “to” not inside the wiki link to make it more apparent there are two wiki links. It may still get reverted, this article is contentious. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:18, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Keiiri's edit was appropriate and informative; I have restored it, while moving out the "to" as suggested, thus avoiding the WP:SEAOFBLUE issue. Note also that we can link Special Counsel directly instead of piping Special prosecutor, because links on redirects are WP:NOTBROKEN. In fact, facilitating natural links within prose is one of the key functions of redirects. — JFG ^talk 11:41, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Another spinoff: Wealth of Donald Trump

I know everyone is tired by the continuing spin-offs we have to make, but I've made one for Wealth of Donald Trump - the section Donald Trump#Wealth was simply too large, and I'm sure you folk here can easily expand the spinoff article soon enough. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:58, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Good move, thanks! — JFG ^talk 11:43, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 December 2018

This article is not balanced. It carries much of the concerns expressed by the democratic party and mainstream left leaning media and does not include various accomplishments of his since being in office. I am requesting that this article be noted as biased, with more information needed such as Executive Orders he has passed, paychecks he has donated to various causes, legislation he has helped to get completed, tax breaks he was instrumental in helping to get passed, judges he nominated for the Supreme Court, and how he is perceived by the Republican party and his voters (which would contain both good and bad). Very disappointed in this page at this time. Bannij (talk) 17:05, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd like to take a look at List of executive actions by Donald Trump, which is linked from this article. General Ization ^Talk 17:09, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Marking this as answered as you'd need a consensus for this and your edit request is not very specific. Please also see WP:NPOV. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:27, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Description of criminal charges against Trump associates

Should the bolded language below be removed from the last paragraph of the lead section?

After Trump dismissed FBI Director James Comey, the Justice Department appointed Robert Mueller as Special Counsel to investigate possible links between the Trump campaign and the Russian government regarding election interference, and any matters arising from that. The ongoing investigation has led to guilty pleas by several Trump associates for criminal charges unrelated to Russia's efforts. Trump has repeatedly denied accusations of collusion and obstruction of justice, calling the investigation a politically motivated "witch hunt".

R2 (bleep) 19:29, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• No It clarifies what is important. PackMecEng (talk) 19:30, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Extended discussion

The current wording is technically factual. I was concerned with an earlier version because it could imply that the case is closed and there was no collusion between the Trump people and Russia to influence the election, which of course is still an open question. With the copyediting that has occurred since then, I'm reasonably comfortable with the current version. - MrX 🖋 19:37, 20 December 2018 (UTC)