Talk:Donald Trump

Highlighted open discussions

• #RfC: Description of criminal charges against Trump associates
• #RfC: Should the lead be updated to reflect that Trump has continued to make false or misleading statements throughout his campaign and presidency?

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 Superseded by #15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 (Nov 2016, Dec 2016) (Superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)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 Superseded by #35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 (Sep 2016, February 2017, wording shortened per April 2017, upheld with July 2018) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019)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 Superseded by #17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

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)
• Yes per WP:V and WP:NPV. I believe this is a false statement and it does not appear to be verified either by an inline citation or by content in the article body that is verified by an inline citation. When you plead guilty to lying to the FBI about your contacts with Russian who were interfering with an election, then charges cannot be neutrally described as "unrelated" to Russian interference. R2 (bleep) 19:39, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

The connection you are making is a wrong inference. Flynn's guilty plea only relates to his conversations with ambassador Kislyak (after the election, to boot). I have not seen any assertion by Mueller or any U.S. agencies that Kislyak was involved in election interference, therefore the trail stops here. — JFG ^talk 21:51, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

The current language doesn't say that none of the charges were for involvement in Russian interference. It says none of the charges were related to election interference. That's a big difference. Maybe that's the solution, so say none of the charges were for involvement in Russian inference? R2 (bleep) 22:01, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

We could certainly discuss further improvements to the text after the RfC concludes. Modifying the phrase while in progress would be confusing to participants. I still believe the wording "criminal charges unrelated to Russia's efforts" is clear enough in context, because we just mentioned that Mueller is investigating responsibilities and potential complicities in the Russian interference. — JFG ^talk 22:17, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

• I think this whole paragraph should be rewritten. I believe it is only understandable if you already know the story. Russia's efforts to do what? Collusion with whom to do what? I agree that the bolded text is misleading, as some of the charges are related and some are not.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:01, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
• No – The bolded statement is perfectly accurate and well-sourced. The Washington Post wrote: "Four former Trump campaign officials have pleaded guilty in Mueller’s investigation, though none were charged with colluding with Russians to affect the 2016 election."[1] Omitting this part of the sentence, in context, would mislead readers into thinking that Trump associates did plead guilty to helping Russia, which none of them were even accused of. — JFG ^talk 20:34, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Why don't we change our language to reflect that Washington Post source? I'd be fine with that. R2 (bleep) 22:07, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I have added accurate language citing WaPo in the body. I don't think it's appropriate to modify the lede section text while an RfC is in progress, but we could discuss it afterwards. — JFG ^talk 22:17, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

• No. This sentence is factual and it reflects the WP:WEIGHT of coverage about him by reliable sources. It would be massively misleading to just say "guilty pleas" without any hint as to what they were for. And this material has already been discussed, above, and seems to have a rough consensus. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:55, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
• Yes We don't know that the bolded statement is true. In Flynn's case, we know that he lied to the FBI about his contact with Kislyak. Do we know for sure that Russian election interference didn't come up in their conversations? No. Because Flynn's sentencing statement was heavily redacted. It's best to leave that clause out. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:56, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
• Yes. We cannot definitively say this. And even if we could, that does not need to be in the lead section. Neutrality^talk 05:20, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
• Yes - The sources presented by MastCell, and the subsequent discussion, have convinced me to that my initial instinct was correct. The wording in question could be considered narrowly factual, but it is far more likely to be interpreted as exoneration of Trump and his inner circle, which would be misleading. - MrX 🖋 12:37, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
• Yes, although some better alternative is needed. As it currently stands, it gives the impression that the individuals did not collude with Russia, which we do not yet know. In fact, it seems likely that one or more of these individuals may have pleaded to a lesser charge as part of their cooperation. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:05, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

By the same token without it, it makes it look like all of them did collude with Russia to interfere in the election. Misleading in the other direction. PackMecEng (talk) 16:10, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

• Yes appears to me to be a clear case of WP:OR - that is, it's being added as an indirect surmisal by editors who don't actually have a source for it, and thus it's clearly against Wikipedia policy. I also agree with Muboshgu (talk)'s points above. Ewen Douglas (talk) 15:30, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Source was added to the relevant section of the body. No OR involved. PackMecEng (talk) 16:09, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Even that sentence in the body is a clear example of WP:SYNTH - it "implies a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source", so yes, it's original research, according to that policy. Ewen Douglas (talk) 16:14, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Here is the source Washintong Post and here is what the source says Four former Trump campaign officials have pleaded guilty in Mueller’s investigation, though none were charged with colluding with Russians to affect the 2016 election. PackMecEng (talk) 16:27, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Opened a dedicated thread below: #Word-for-word quotation of source considered synthesis?? — JFG ^talk 17:45, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I addressed this below in that thread. I stand by my vote for removal, as I still feel the current wording would lead a reader to believe that everyone working on the Trump campaign has been exonerated from accusations of collusion, which clearly is not true (yet). Ewen Douglas (talk) 17:58, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

• No YASSSS and I removed it: we cannot have that sort of apologist commentary in the lead. And without it the statement is of course verifiably correct. Drmies (talk) 22:09, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Drmies The question is if they should be removed. If you think they should be removed it would be a yes vote. PackMecEng (talk) 00:53, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

PackMecEng, thanks and merry Christmas! Drmies (talk) 21:39, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

• No - misstated RFP. Delete that whole line as injected without prior consensus per ONUS, leading into this whole Run Around. And basically it just is not appropriate to LEAD or the BLP. Chasing what wording incorrectly poses the rest of the line as if that is not in question. Markbassett (talk) 13:01, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
• Yes. The "unrelated to Russia" wording needs to be removed, because it is unequivocally false. Flynn's and Cohen's crimes were directly related to Russia. (See #Writing falsehoods into the article, above). Separately, if an RfC concludes that false material should be written into an article, then there is something seriously wrong with the RfC process or with the group of editors participating. Alternate wording could be proposed, and I'm sensitive to the need to avoid incorrect implications. But at a minimum, wording needs to be, you know, true. I can't believe I have to say this. This talkpage is like bizarro Wikipedia. MastCell ^Talk 16:28, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
• No. I have added two sources that directly support the claim, see [2] and [3], which render complains about verifiability and original research moot. The caveat must be included or we are falsely implying that the guilty pleas were directly related to alleged collusion with Russia. Another possibility is rewording the claim; I have suggested something like "Trump associated who were not charged with colluding with Russia", which was consistent with the WaPo source already in the article. If there is no agreement on possible wording, guilty pleas should not be mentioned at all and not least because mentioning them unduely draw focus on matters that are not directly relevant to Trump. Politrukki (talk) 21:44, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
• No - Many sources have been provided to support it, several good ones (including BBC) just in the comment above. D.Creish (talk) 22:09, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
• Yes - The current text is demonstrably false. Removing the false text moves toward NPOV, as per my detailed comments at: [4]. I also believe that removal should take place before this discussion is closed as removal of the text is neutral. O3000 (talk) 01:16, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

  CNBC: "In fact, [Mueller] has obtained guilty pleas to various crimes unrelated to collusion from Trump's former national security advisor Michael Flynn, Trump campaign official Rick Gates and campaign advisor George Papadopoulos."[5] BBC: "Have others [than Flynn] pleaded guilty in the Mueller probe? ¶Yes, although not on charges related to collusion with Russia.[6] Do you have a specific reason to reject reliable sources and present "alternative facts"? If reliable sources use the word "collusion" as a shorthand, whether collusion is a crime or not is immaterial. Politrukki (talk) 09:19, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

There is no crime named collusion. So, of course no one has been charged with this non-existent crime. But, they have been charged and pled guilty to crimes related to Trump and Russians. The current text is misleading. O3000 (talk) 17:03, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

O3000, the source says “unrelated to” which describes the context of a crime not the crime itself.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 07:54, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Colluding with Russia to affect the U.S. election is indeed a crime, despite the fact that the relevant statutes don't use the word "collusion". -- Jibal (talk) 20:59, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

See my links below. There's a huge gap between "not specifically charged with collusion" and the current much-more-broad "charges unrelated to Russia's efforts." Numerous sources relate these charges directly back to that topic. eg. Vox, CNN, NPR. Saying that it is "unrelated to Russia's efforts" is wishful editorializing by an editor, completely disconnected from the facts and without even the slightest bit of support in the sources. --Aquillion (talk) 20:39, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

We don't go by sources connecting crimes somehow to the Russian govt, we go by Mueller. Unless Mueller himself said that the charges are a consequence of collusion/Russian govt actions/efforts, we don't need to draw WP:CRYSTAL conclusions on a topic with limited facts and unlimited speculation and conspiracy theories. wumbolo ^^^ 17:08, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• No, per User:Politrukki, whose sources discredit most of the ‘Yes’ commenters’ arguments.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 09:37, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
• Yes, unnecessary detail unrelated to this very specific article. Keep the minutiae to those articles. Keiiri (talk) 12:15, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

• Yes: "unrelated to Russia's efforts" is vague and potentially misleading, as some of the charges/guilty pleas/convictions are "related". --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:49, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
• No per Politrukki. This is very relevant because Russia's election interference is the whole premise of the paragraph, and we'd want to clarify this to be BLP-compliant. Whether or not collusion is a crime is irrelevant here – we're talking about crimes related to collusion. This is about an ongoing investigation which can make this RfC useless in ictu oculi so WP:SYNTH should be "allowed" here to some degree. I am certainly open to any counter-arguments to citing the BBC (after all, if we can scrutinize The Guardian, we should scrutinize the BBC as well). wumbolo ^^^ 21:50, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
• No I was sent to this RfC by bot. Voting "no" per JFG, MelanieN, Politrukki and Wumbolo. DynaGirl (talk) 16:38, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
• Yes, as currently written, "unrelated to Russia's efforts" is vague and potentially misleading. What sources say is "none were charged with colluding with Russians to affect the 2016 election". Which is much more specific. That some sort of 'qualifying text', is needed, I would probably agree with, but this isn't it. Pincrete (talk) 17:42, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
• Yes, the current wording goes beyond what the source says to the point where it's essentially uncited. "...though none were charged with colluding with Russians to affect the 2016 election" does not even remotely parse to saying, in encyclopedia voice in the lead, that their convictions are "for criminal charges unrelated to Russia's efforts." We could perhaps find a more careful wording, but the important thing is to get the bolded text out first, since it's flatly unsupported by the sources. There is a vast gap between "not specifically charged with colluding with Russia" and "unrelated to that investigation." Plenty of sources relate them to Russia. Vox: But in November, [Michael Flynn] made a plea deal with Mueller too, for lying to Congress about efforts to build a Trump Tower in Moscow. CNN: "Former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to making false statements to Congress in his testimony about the Russia investigation." Calling this "unrelated" is a flat-out lie. NPR: W. Samuel Patten pleaded guilty in August 2018 to failing to register as a foreign agent for lobbying work he performed for a political party in Ukraine called Opposition Bloc. Prosecutors said Patten partnered with a Russian national to lobby on behalf of the pro-Russia party..., and During the 2016 campaign, Michael Flynn led chants of "lock her up" at the Republican National Convention, and after Trump's victory, was appointed to serve as his first national security adviser. But he lasted less than a month on the job before resigning, and in December 2017, he pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his contacts with the Russian ambassador during the transition. --Aquillion (talk) 20:36, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
• Yes – it's far fetched to conclude that all these indictments are unrelated to what Mueller is investigating, even if most are. Dicklyon (talk) 01:38, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
• Yes - It is both more succinct and less controversial for the lead to simply state they were convicted. It is more appropriate to detail any relationship for each conviction to Russia, or lack of any relationship to Russia, in the body of the text related to each conviction.--Saranoon (talk) 06:24, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
• Yes - the only way to wedge this language into the statement is to heavily rely on a combination of original research and synthesis, which is clearly not permissible. The statement without this language is easily verifiable and a reasonable summary of the available reliable sources on the the topic; with the language it is not. Snow ^{let's rap} 05:41, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
• (Summoned by bot) No per MelanieN and Politrukki. (The wording already appears to have changed?) Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:41, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
• Yes remove it; it's WP:SYNTHESIS and it's designed to crowbar in a political point. Either of those reasons alone would be enough to remove it. The only 'no' votes are coming from fairly clear partisans in this matter. The "Yes" votes appear to rely on Wikipedia policy. Ewen Douglas (talk) 03:51, 7 January 2019 (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) ETA: I've reconsidered in light of new arguments.- MrX 🖋 12:41, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "technically factual," but if you're saying the wording is accurate, then you need to be able to back that up with a citation. R2 (bleep) 19:41, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

No Trump associates have plead guilty to working with Russia to influence the election. I'm not aware that anyone has contested that fact.- MrX 🖋 19:52, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

"Working with Russia to influence the election" isn't a crime. But lying about your contacts with Russians while they are trying to interfere with the election is certainly related to the interference. The bottom line, however, is that everything in Wikipedia needs to be verifiable, this statement is included. If you can't back it up with a source, then it must go. Wikipedia 101. R2 (bleep) 21:57, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

FYI I have now added the WaPo quote to the article body,[7] but I can't remove your {{cn}} because of 1RR. — JFG ^talk 22:10, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

The disputed language doesn't conform to that source, so the cn tag still applies. However if we conform the lead language to the source then I'm satisfied and will gladly remove the tag. R2 (bleep) 22:14, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

"Working with Russia to influence the election"' isn't a crime" -- It is, actually. Among other things it falls under conspiracy to defraud the United States: https://www.justice.gov/jm/criminal-resource-manual-923-18-usc-371-conspiracy-defraud-us "To conspire to defraud the United States means primarily to cheat the Government out of property or money, but it also means to interfere with or obstruct one of its lawful governmental functions by deceit, craft or trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest. It is not necessary that the Government shall be subjected to property or pecuniary loss by the fraud, but only that its legitimate official action and purpose shall be defeated by misrepresentation, chicane or the overreaching of those charged with carrying out the governmental intention." ... and there are other statutes regarding working with foreign nationals for personal gain that specifically attach to Trump or anyone who would benefit from his election. -- Jibal (talk) 21:13, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Jibal Hmm not quite “working with Russia” being a crime. That is the USC chosen for indicting the 13 Russians, along with a few charges of bank or wire fraud and identity fraud that were part of posing as not Russians. Skipping over that no link to those is made to Trump associates, theories why it wasn’t 52 USC 30121, and the question of if this application of what is commonly used for Medicare fraud would even work in the event one of them chooses to go to trial, it is still (a) an indictment not yet shown a crime and (b) none of the ordinary U.S. citizens who “worked with” them have been so indicted. A “worked with” association of even participating (well beyond anything mentioned for any US citizen) is not usually criminal in the Medicare fraud application of this it seems — it seems it takes a knowing “conspiracy”, of a “planned the effort” or “managed events” type. That or actually *doing* the work in an illegal method. A generic “working with” Russia is going too far, that is not a crime. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 13:47, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea what you said there ... it's quite incoherent. Not that I care in the slightest about your irrelevant ramblings. -- Jibal (talk) 08:33, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

? No, it is not “certainly ‘related’”, this is about it being quite the other way around. The line is about no associate was tied to Russian Interference in any of the convictions — that the crimes are definitely *not* ‘related’ to Russian Interference. Talking with one Russian while some other Russian trolls on Facebook is too many degrees of separation to properly call “related”. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:49, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Alternate proposal

I will withdraw the RfC if we can get consensus for the following proposal. Change:

The ongoing investigation has led to guilty pleas by several Trump associates for criminal charges unrelated to Russia's efforts.

to

The ongoing investigation has led to guilty pleas by several Trump associates, though none were charged with colluding with Russian interference efforts.

This is based on this source helpfully provided by JFG. R2 (bleep) 23:21, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

• The latter part of the second sentence is almost the exact same as the source: though none were charged with colluding with Russians to affect the 2016 election. Would need to be reworded further. Anarchyte (talk | work) 03:55, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

"Charged with colluding" is an impossibility because "collusion" (whatever that is) is not a crime. Treason or "providing aid and comfort to the enemy" would be a crime. The key point to note is that none of those people were accused of helping or supporting Russian interference efforts in any way, much less conspiring to organize such efforts (and by now Mueller has charged a litany of people who performed and directed this interference operation – all Russians, plus a hapless American who created fake identities at their behest). Maybe keep it short: "though none were charged with helping Russia"? It's clear from context that we are talking about election interference. — JFG ^talk 06:55, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

What about "though none were charged with coordinating with Russia"? Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:03, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Treason in the USA is a war-related crime. The USA is not at war with Russia. Russia is not the "enemy", so there is no possibility that anyone could be charged with treason or "providing aid and comfort to the enemy" (which is a partial quotation of the definition of treason). The Rosenbergs were not charged with treason. Anyway, the paragraph is too vague, as I said above. Terms like "collusion" and "efforts" don't convey anything in particular. The paragraph would be much better if it was shorter and sharper.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:54, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, treason is not the crime they would be charged with if they were colluding with Russia. Regarding your last point, try your hand at a shorter version in Talk:Donald Trump/sandbox? Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:43, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: Totally agree. Unfortunately the "treason" word has been recently mentioned by several commentators in the Flynn case, including his judge! "Collusion" is legally undefined; "conspiracy" would be something of substance, but again, nobody has been accused of conspiring with Russia. — JFG ^talk 08:47, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ahrtoodeetoo and Jack Upland: I would support this wording:

The ongoing investigation has led to guilty pleas by several Trump associates, although none of them were charged with helping Russia.

What do you think? — JFG ^talk 14:34, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Sounds strange to me, considering "helping Russia" is not a crime. FritsNL (talk) 15:37, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

It's not ideal for the reason identified by FritsNL but think it's an improvement over the current version, so I'd support it. I think we can mitigate the problem by changing the wording from "charged with" to "charged for." "Charged with X" typically implies that X is a crime, where as "charged for X" is bit less legally rigorous and therefore arguably gives us some wiggle room. It's also quite concise which is always a plus in my view. R2 (bleep) 17:22, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps you're looking for "accused of". Any use of "charged" will mean crime to most Americans, if not our former masters to the east. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:31, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I was about to write that the problem with using "accused of" is that lots of people have accused Trump and his associates of colluding with the Russians, just not the DOJ. But even that's not true. For all we know the DOJ may have accused Trump associates of collusion under seal or redaction. Maybe this: The ongoing investigation has led to guilty pleas by several Trump associates, although the Department of Justice has not publicly accused any of them of helping Russia. R2 (bleep) 17:39, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

"not publicly accused them" sounds like skirting the issue and engaging in speculation that there may be hidden indictments ready to be revealed any minute now, to finally spell the end of Trump's presidency… as has been speculated for the last two years. Readers have speculation fatigue. Meanwhile Mueller has clearly identified who did what on the Russia front (Internet Research Agency trolls, Concord Catering and one clueless swindler in California), and those were so far not any of the Trump aides that were investigated. We just need to wait if there's more, nobody knows. — JFG ^talk 23:45, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

That's the problem with trying to describe an law enforcement investigation partway through. R2 (bleep) 23:51, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

JFG - the first, shorter wording is cleaner ... but neither belongs in the LEAD of this article. Markbassett (talk) 13:05, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

• No to this. It's misleading wording. What does "charged with colluding with Russian interference efforts" even mean? It's not a specific crime, so all convictions will be for at least partially tangential things (eg. campaign finance violations, lying to investigators about matters relevant to the case, etc.) This construction essentially sets up something impossible and then words it in a way that makes it sound like its failure to happen is a form of exoneration. If we must reword it, I would prefer something like The ongoing investigation has led to guilty pleas by several Trump associates, including for lying to investigators, campaign finance violations, and tax fraud. That isn't much longer than the current version and is far more specific, allowing readers to decide for themselves whether that is "related" to Russia's efforts (or signaling to them that they need to skim down for more details) rather than either directly stating or indirectly implying something unsupported by the sources. Basically, if it's this controversial, we need to stop tiptoeing around what they were charged with and just summarize the most relevant or highest-profile cases in a few words. --Aquillion (talk) 20:46, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

  Aquillion, I think your suggested text solves this dispute. I think there should be a RFC on your suggested text as I think it would obtain a high(er) level of consensus--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 09:58, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I think that is a good suggestion.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:35, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for this fresh proposal, which helps address the concerns of many editors. We could still tighten it a bit more: The ongoing investigation has found several Trump associates guilty of lying to investigators, campaign finance violations, and tax fraud. Or The ongoing investigation has determined that several Trump associates had lied to investigators, made excessive campaign contributions, or committed tax fraud. I still believe we should state that none of the involved people was even accused of any wrongdoing regarding Russia, but I'm not sure how to formulate it. — JFG ^talk 00:03, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it is correct to say the investigation has found them guilty. An investigation cannot find or determine guilt. Charges were laid, and the accused pleaded guilty.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:08, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

How to solve this problem

Folks, this problem is not going to be solved by repeatedly reverting 4 words in and out of the article, or by voting "Yes" or "No" in an RfC. The problem will be solved when an editor or editors take the time and effort to actually read and understand the legitimate concerns of both sides and then come up with a creative wording that resolves those concerns. Don't focus on the four words, take a step back and look at the entire paragraph. Skimming the above, some concerns that jump out at me are:

• We should not (incorrectly) imply that the charges were for colluding with Russians to interfere with the election
• We should not (incorrectly) imply that the charges were completely unrelated to Russia.
• We should not go into too much detail about the investigation. (This article isn't about that, and we're in the lede section here.)

Who's going to be the one to come up with the solution? Donald Trump/sandbox is open for editing if a group of you want to work on something there without worrying about 1RR in the article itself. ~Awilley (talk) 05:19, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

(I moved the sandbox to Talk:Donald Trump/sandbox because you don't want an article titled "Donald Trump/sandbox") Yeah, considering one of the objectors, R2, does agree with just using the precise WaPo wording; and while that phrase would need to be reworded to avoid close paraphrasing, there's definitely a qualifier or sentence that would be more accurate or a better paraphrase than "unrelated to Russia's efforts" which is why I'm not going to be voting up or down in that RfC but rather going to think over that. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:53, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

In light of the sources and argument presented by MastCell, I've commented in favor of the RfC above (and so have others). At this point, there is no consensus for the four words, although that could change. The rest of the material is fine as far as I'm concerned.- MrX 🖋 12:46, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

☝️ This is the attitude I want you to change. It's easy for you to understand your concerns, but are you able to understand the concerns of others? ~Awilley (talk) 12:58, 21 December 2018 (UTC) Sorry, that was a bit too personal. ~Awilley (talk) 14:59, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

My attitude is fine, thank you. I have explained my reasoning in several sections and I have listened intently to other's comments which is why my view changed from opposing the four words, to accepting the four words, back to opposing the four words. If you want to suggest alternate wording for the paragraph (and recuse your involvement as an admin on this article), I am happy to listen to your suggestions as well. However, I don't entirely accept the premise in your bullet points above.- MrX 🖋 13:12, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Maria Butina pled guilty to infiltrating the NRA for the Russians. Papadopoulos made six attempts to set up meetings between Russians and the Trump campaign, lied about his contact during the Trump campaign with the Russia-connected professor Joseph, and was sentenced for lying to the FBI. Cohen pled guilty to making false statements to Congress regarding the dates of when President Donald Trump and the Trump Organization pursued a deal to build a Trump Tower in Moscow during the election. He also was found guilty of lying to the FBI. When one of these folks pleads guilty to lying to the FBI, do we know the full extent of the lies? I assume there is a reason for all the redactions in court documents. Can we say in Wikivoice that these charges are unrelated to Russian efforts? In my mind, we cannot say unrelated as that appears to be quite incorrect. We cannot say no charges of collusion were made, since, AFAIK, there is no crime named collusion. Since we’re in the lede, I suggest simply: The ongoing investigation has led to guilty pleas by several Trump associates for various criminal charges. We simply do not know all the details at this point and shouldn’t pretend we do. O3000 (talk) 13:14, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Or just remove the guilty pleas of other people from this BLP lede, and wait until Trump himself gets indicted. Much simpler. Again, mentioning criminal charges in the same breath as Russian interference gravely misleads readers, unless we mention that said charges exclude any accusation of helping Russia. As you correctly note, anything else is just guessing. — JFG ^talk 14:26, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

@JFG, But wouldn't that be ignoring the (equally legitimate) concern of MastCell that it is also misleading to readers to uncritically repeat Trump's line about the investigation being a "witch hunt" without mentioning the charges/guilty pleas? ~Awilley (talk) 15:10, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

That is a legitimate concern, which can be addressed separately. The insertion of politically motivated "witch hunt" was debated a long time ago and found consensus. It was added as a documentation of Trump's rebuttal of the accusations leveled at him, per WP:BLPPUBLIC. Basically, either we mention the allegations and the defense, or nothing. Given the prominence of the Special Counsel investigation in Trump's presidency so far, editors agreed that it had to be mentioned in the lede per WP:DUE WEIGHT. Naturally, editors also agreed that Trump's counter-stance to this investigation had to be mentioned as well. In today's debate, some editors, starting with MastCell, considered that guilty pleas of Trump associates should be mentioned in the lede, and others, starting with Politrukki, stated that mentioning such guilty pleas without specifying that nobody was accused of "colluding with Russia" would be highly misleading for readers. — JFG ^talk 17:41, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I think that's a good summary of the logical progression that led to where we are. Here's a different sort of proposal. Replace the "politically motivated witch hunt" sentence with something much more generic simply saying that Trump has denied any wrongdoing. Then we can get rid of the stuff about the charges against his associates. R2 (bleep) 17:44, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Interesting offer. I'm afraid it's not that simple, because this proposal would trade an agreement about one subject (how to describe Trump's reaction to the Mueller probe) against an agreement about another subject (whether Trump associates charged by Mueller should be mentioned in Trump's BLP lede). Any such "deal" would have to go through RfC. Personally I much prefer debating each question separately. — JFG ^talk 18:05, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

What do you think of that proposal, procedural issues aside? I'm not suggesting it as a sort of quid pro quo, more as something that might address everyone's valid concerns. R2 (bleep) 18:12, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't like the "trade" idea, but I am happy to give you my opinion on each of the subjects. The Mueller probe has largely enough weight to deserve a paragraph in the lede section. Trump's "witch hunt" defense has become so iconic that it is also eminently DUE. Regarding the guilty pleas, I'd be happy either to keep the current text (mention the charges and specify they do not imply any wrongdoing regarding the election), or to remove them altogether until and unless Trump himself gets indicted. After all, it's his biography, not Manafort's, Flynn's or Cohen's. — JFG ^talk 18:29, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for advancing the conversation, Awilley, and I agree all three of those points are valid. My inclination, when in doubt, is to follow the sources. In this case we're relying on a Washington Post source that says none of the guilty pleas were for collusion. While that isn't ideal, since it might be read imply that collusion is a crime, it's better than the current "related to" language, which isn't verified by any identified source. I'm open to further improvements. R2 (bleep) 17:16, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, it's crappy one way and crappy the other. This can easily be solved like this (bold to be changed, struck to be removed):

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".

The finer points about who has pleaded guilty to what can be found in the main article for the investigation. This article is about Trump, rather than the investigation. Obviously this may change in the future. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:09, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I think the guilty pleas need to be mentioned. If they aren't, this argument will erupt again.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:27, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I would support Scjessey's proposal. The impulse to add other people's (mis)deeds into this BLP intro comes back every time one of them is in the news, and can be rejected until Trump is finally charged with something. — JFG ^talk 23:23, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that when Trump accuses Mueller of going on a witch hunt, he's not just professing his innocence, he's also accusing Mueller of wrongdoing. And that requires balanced coverage. R2 (bleep) 23:32, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Also, does Comey have to be mentioned here? It's unexplained what the connection is.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:26, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

I cannot support removing the convictions of Trump's closest associates. It's a significant point about his life leading up to and including his presidency.- MrX 🖋 13:18, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

@MrX: Thus far, these close associates have only plead guilty to crimes not related to Trump specifically (Cohen's plea does, but that's with the SDNY); therefore, to include them in this biography would seem to be a case of guilt by association, which doesn't sit well with me. We had the same kind of issue at Barack Obama, where hordes of deplorables wanted to shoehorn people like Bill Ayers and Tony Rezko into the article to make Obama look bad. If it turns out that any of them plead guilty to charges that are related directly to Trump, then obviously my position would change. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:12, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

The text in question doesn't say that Trump committed a crime, but he surrounded himself with close associates who did, which is why it's relevant to his bio. Sources establish the associations very prominently, and so should we.- MrX 🖋 19:34, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Thus far, these close associates have only plead guilty to crimes not related to Trump specifically This is absolutely not true. These crimes were no less related to Trump than any other actions taken by his administration. On top of that, they are part of a well documented culture of lies that starts at the top. It's true that these associates' crimes might not have directly involved Trump himself (in fact, we can't even say that for sure), but that doesn't mean they're not related to him. R2 (bleep) 20:30, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ahrtoodeetoo: This is a BLP. We don't know any of the crimes of these people are related to Trump, so how can we even think of mentioning them here? Again, this is guilt by association, and that just isn't the way things should be done on Wikipedia. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:25, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

(sidenote: Scjessey mentioned did not have Obama article have associates Ayers or Rezko, similarly not associates of Hillary, or Bush, or Reagan.... it’s just OFFTOPIC and seems a POV distortion. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:20, 6 January 2019 (UTC))

User:Awilley - edit war bad, which is why by WP:ONUS it is wrong procedure to have ANY version before TALK consensus. Norm is to revert such out, particularly when it is in LEAD and lacks body content and is in (this) contentious article, so can we please stop the Goose chase and delete until whether and what discussions are done ? (I am also puzzled by the too-eager insert and why re-edits instead of just delete). Markbassett (talk) 13:12, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Protection

I've temporarily protected the article due to the continued reverting. The version I protected was arbitrary, determined by the time that I saw the edit war was continuing, and is not an endorsement of that particular revision. (There is, in fact, no status quo for that sentence, and so far no clear consensus either way on the talk page.) This is exactly the type of impasse that the BRD Cycle is supposed to help help break, and "Enforced BRD" is the name of the rule at the top of the page. Yet the last actual change to the sentence was 2 days ago; since then it's just been straight up reverts.

I am happy to unprotect the article as soon as I see someone willing to make a Bold edit that reasonably addresses some concern of both sides, or when some sort of consensus starts to emerge on the talk page. ~Awilley (talk) 14:43, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Awilley, can you please add an appropriate tag to flag this dispute and show that your choice of version is not an endorsement of it? R2 (bleep) 18:52, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean. The PP template is already on the article. ~Awilley (talk) 18:58, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I mean an inline tag such as {{disputed-inline}} or {{pov-inline}}. R2 (bleep) 20:08, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I've unprotected the article now, but I don't recommend you adding the tag yourself, as it actually does little toward further resolving the dispute. It mostly just annoys people. ~Awilley (talk) 15:45, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Awilley - I am going to return that para to the (months) long-standing consensus of two lines, reverting out the last several days of non-consensus versions on an additional line. That may not hold, but I will try as proper process and see how it goes. WP:ONUS and norm is to get consensus before inserting material into lead, particularly for contentious articles, and past practice seems to revert out edits to lead especially per WP:LEAD if done before body text has been added to suit such an edit. (Really seems like a ‘just follow the process’ here — any other practice for LEAD seems asking for edit wars and keeping edit wars going contrary to even WP:BRD. A 48 hour waiting period on inserting news items would also be good, but that’s just my personal thinking.) That associates are convicted on things other than the Russian election interference is a simple observation, and when consensus occurs on what words (if any) to use to convey that in BLP lead ... please let us do it then and not before. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:23, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

... that lasted about 55 minutes before undone by Calton with note “That was sudden”. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 08:21, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

It's important that we keep the lead updated, after all we are an online encyclopedia. You seem to be one of the very few editors who simply don't like this particular information in the lead.- MrX 🖋 13:31, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

ha... ‘very few’ kind of obviously disproven by the length of arguing above; in any case still failing WP:ONUS of supposed to get consensus on whether to include and what wording BEFORE just jamming stuff into lead of a prominent and contentious article and so kicking it into edit wars. If WP does not follow the guidance to simply revert out... well, here we are and I await someone posting a WP policy or guide to do it this way other than abusing WP:IAR. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:06, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Mention of Queens in the infobox

Forgive me for my lack of understanding but I'm unsure if boroughs or city districts are supposed to be mentioned in the infobox. I always thought it was just the city that is supposed to be mentioned. GoAnimateFan199Pro (talk) 06:39, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

This is due to a recent discussion. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:31, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Thousands of false and misleading statements

This ("He continued to make thousands of false or misleading claims during his presidency.") was removed from the lead as unsourced and OR. It's not. The article contains an entire section, include a citation to the fact that Trump has made more than 7600 false and misleading claims,[8] and numerous supporting citations. We even have a dedicated article!

As it reads now, the lead is very misleading. It tell readers that he stopped lying after the campaign. That glaring omission needs to be corrected. - MrX 🖋 12:19, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

How many times in the lead do we need to call him a liar? It is getting ridiculous at this point. PackMecEng (talk) 14:19, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Once. But we need to do it correctly. He didn't stop lying after he was elected. He actually increased the number of lies substantially. - MrX 🖋 14:51, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

If once then we are already covered by "many of his public statements were controversial or false". PackMecEng (talk) 15:01, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Trump is lying more and his lies are increasingly bold.[9][10][11][12] It is not a phenomenon that exists in the past. It's not an occasional. It's not about his statements being controversial. The current text is misleading.- MrX 🖋 15:10, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes you got me being deliberately obtuse.... Get out of here with that BS, you know better. Anyhow if you think the current text is misleading perhaps updating it instead of rambling over and over about lies would be a better option as I mentioned above. It only needs to be mentioned once. Also since the current text enjoys strong strong consensus if you think it is misleading and wrong then throw up an RFC to override that consensus for your POV. PackMecEng (talk) 15:19, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Trump's torrent of false statement is not my POV. - MrX 🖋 16:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Nope no kidding, you misunderstand the context of POV here. The POV I was clearly referring to was that it needed to be in the lead the way you put it. Your point of view was that the sentence should be in the lead. PackMecEng (talk) 16:52, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Please knock it off, you two. Discuss the content, not other editors. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:03, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Fine mom! PackMecEng (talk) 16:26, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Falsehoods, revisited?

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.

---

User:MrX raises an interesting question, above. I almost hate to raise this issue again, because we have discussed it so often and have repeatedly reaffirmed consensus for our current approach, but it may be worth taking another look. Currently we have this in the third paragraph, which is the “campaign and election” section of the lead: His campaign received extensive free media coverage; many of his public statements were controversial or false. But I agree with MrX that it is misleading to imply that this was only true during the campaign. Let’s have a discussion - just a general discussion, not yet an RfC - about whether to change this, and to what. Let’s discuss whether to move the above sentence to later in the paragraph, after we describe his election. We could put it after His election and policies have sparked numerous protests. and before Many of his comments and actions have been perceived as racially charged or racist.. Let’s also discuss the wording; I think we should drop “free media coverage”, which isn’t that important, and focus on the “falsehood” aspect. And we should debate whether to include the conclusion that his falsehoods are unprecedented/a record (to get past the “all politicians lie” objection). If we want we could include a reference to support "record number".

Sources

I suggest we make this a preliminary discussion to get the sense of the community. If after discussion we find there is local agreement to change it, we can then proceed to an RfC. And of course we should not make any changes to the article now - not until it is clear through RfC that we have a new consensus. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:35, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately I created the RfC before I saw this. I would suggest that if anyone favors a particular phrasing, that they create a subsection within the RfC to measure support.- MrX 🖋 17:08, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Move the sentence out of the “campaign” area?

Possible wording?

Here are some possible wordings, feel free to add more :

• Many of his public statements have been misleading or false.
• Many of his public statements, both during the campaign and during his presidency, have been misleading or false.
• A record number of his public statements, both during the campaign and during his presidency, have been misleading or false.

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.

Removal of early actions

Pinging Power~enwiki, regarding [13], while I'm not opposed to the removal of the early actions section, this does leave us in a position where the Gorsuch nomination is in the lead but not the body. Also I think the other content should be integrated in various relevant places in the Presidency section wherever not redundant. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:27, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I restored the section. It is well sourced and as Galobtter points out it is info not found in the rest of the article. I would be fine with integrating the info into other sections, just not blanking well sourced and notable info while making the top of the section look like crap. PackMecEng (talk) 14:17, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Something needs to be done; it's excessive at this point, and dates from when we only had one week of Presidency material to include in that section. As a separate note, Kavanaugh is not mentioned in the body at all; there probably should be a section on "Judicial appointments", possibly after "Cabinet". power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

To be fair, Trump did sign a lot of orders in the first several days/weeks of his presidency, and many of those orders made relatively large policy changes. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:42, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Should the lead be updated to reflect that Trump has continued to make false or misleading statements throughout his campaign and presidency?

Should the lead be updated to reflect that Trump has continued to make false or misleading statements throughout his campaign and presidency? - MrX 🖋 17:06, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Current Text

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

Proposed Text

During his campaign and as president, Trump made a record number of false or misleading statements., exceeding 7,500 by the end of his second year in office.

Struck last portion of the proposed text based on near-unanimous feedback.- MrX 🖋 18:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Previous discussions

• September 12, 2016
• February 3, 2017
• April 7, 2017
• July 23, 2018

- MrX 🖋 17:06, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Survey: False/misleading

• Support. The shocking number of brazen falsehoods, many of which have been repeated dozens of times, are a defining feature of his persona, campaign and presidency. The current text fails to fully reflect this. The proposed text is an improvement. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:13, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
• I don't like "exceeding 7,500 by the end of his second year in office." because that is one organization's number and hardly the "one true number" that we can definitely state without attribution. Another fact checking organization may say he made more than 3900 falsehoods etc. But I support

  His campaign received extensive free media coverage. A record number of his public statements, both during his campaign and presidency, have been misleading or false.

  Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:17, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

  We can probably drop the "free media coverage" bit too; has importance but is honestly more relevant to articles on the media than Trump. Or we can make it His campaign received extensive free media coverage, in part due to his controversial statements but considering a large portion of his controversial statements relate to race, which we have a sentence on, seems unnecessary. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:24, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

  Scratch that somewhat, just dropping the last bit, for During his campaign and as president, Trump made a record number of false or misleading statements. is pretty good. (there is a slight grammar issue that I'll quibble over later) Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:30, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

• I am not a fan of the 7,500 part either, without the ", exceeding 7,500 by the end of his second year in office" part I support it as an improvement. PackMecEng (talk) 17:19, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support some addition – All politicians lie during campaigns; so the current text doesn’t say anything specific to Trump. OTOH, the sheer volume of false or misleading statements during his presidency is a constant topic of RS and clearly DUE. My only concern is the number 7,500 which comes from one source. Attributing the number would solve that problem, but might suggest only one source exists for the high volume. It is attributed in the body which might be enough. Perhaps “exceeding, by one count, 7,500 by the end of his second year in office”. O3000 (talk) 17:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
• Partial support - I am not a fan of the proposed text. I would prefer to see something like this: Trump has made a record number of false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency. The specifics of his mendacity (nature and number of lies) should be left to the body of the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:48, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
• Qualified support I now Support the current version with the "7,500" phrase struck out. I support Galobter's version, "During his campaign and as president, Trump made a record number of false or misleading statements." Leave out the 7,500 which is unnecessary detail and is best left to the text, where it can be updated as needed. I also think, as I said in the above section (where I was hoping to postpone a formal RfC until we had reached some kind of local consensus about exactly what to propose; now we will have to keep changing it which is unfortunate in an RfC), that it should be moved from its current position in the paragraph to become the next-to-the-last sentence. Also, we may want to include a reference to support "record number". -- MelanieN (talk) 17:55, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

  @MelanieN: We're not necessarily committed to using RfC at this point. If this is sufficiently "unfortunate", we have the option of simply removing the {{rfc}} template before it goes too much further. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - The problem is, there's no way to actually know if this statement is true. The amount of fact-checking done on presidents today is obviously a little more stringent than it was in, say, the 1820's. Much of how "factual" or honest/dishonest a statement is, varies with cultures and time. You can't really make a fair and direct comparison between the "truthfulness" of Trump's statements and John Quincy Adam's; thus, a "record number" seems like a very recentist viewpoint. NickCT (talk) 18:23, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

One source says "unprecedented for a modern presidential candidate" = Scope of Trump's falsehoods unprecedented for a modern presidential candidate. Would you be OK with something like that? -- MelanieN (talk) 19:06, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

@MelanieN: - Yes. I think I would be. But I'd like to see the exact proposed wording. NickCT (talk) 19:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

User:MelanieN I think 7500 is less problematic ... that is at least factually pointing to someone’s count. There is no comparable count numbers done before though or the current level of scrutiny/ambush, so “unprecedented” comes off as just bloviating a tautology (since we never counted before, any result is unprecedented) and “modern candidates” seems unsuitable for the thread intent of going beyond the election and a bit unclear what “modern” is. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:45, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

It would be similar to what is done with popularity and approval reports: any comparison has to include the phrase "in the era of modern polling" (basically since the 1930s) because we have no way to judge the popularity of politicians before that time. Modern, formal fact checking of politicians began with the launch of FactCheck.org in 2003, although it had earlier roots with the "Ad Police" in the 1990s. (Of course Snopes predates them both, but Snopes evaluates a different type of material.) -- MelanieN (talk) 16:18, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

That isn't really true because none of these fact checkers have fact checked every statement uttered by Bush and Obama to compare it to Trump where they do fact check his every statement. עם ישראל חי (talk) 16:39, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, Bush and Obama WERE fact-checked. The era of formal fact-checking began with the launch of FactCheck.org in 2003. Other politicians during the past 16 years have also been subject to formal fact-checking. I agree that's a small sample compared to the nation's 200-year history, but it's not nothing. As for the number of statements that got evaluated for each president - there had to be some suspicion that a statement might not be true, for it to be fact-checked. They don't fact-check Trump when he says "today is Tuesday" or "I spoke with Putin" or "I signed this bill". They do fact-check him when he says things that are dubious like "we have already started building The Wall." -- MelanieN (talk) 17:17, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

While I agree with you MelanieN that Bush and Obama were probably as stringently fact-checked as Trump, I also agree with עם ישראל חי in the sense that we don't really know what proportion of their comments were actually fact checked.

As I alluded to above, the problem with making any quantitative assertions about "truthfulness" (e.g. "most lies", "biggest liar", etc) is that truthfulness is ultimately a subjective measure for which there is no agreed upon scale or yardstick.

I think it's best to just stick to what we know is true, which is that a lot of sources has been critical of the "truthfulness" issue. NickCT (talk) 18:32, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Relative superlatives "most", "worst" "unprecedented" are just words. I'd prefer a steady stream of harmless fibs than giant lies about private servers, IRS targeting and DOJ subterfuge.--MONGO (talk) 19:20, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

  Yeah, but what we would prefer is irrelevant. The body of reliable sources agrees about as much as they could agree on anything: the phenomenon is unprecedented. They say that's significant, so it's significant. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:23, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Your statement does not nullify my position. Wikipedia is NOTNEWS BTW.--MONGO (talk) 19:35, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Your statement does not nullify my position. Sadly, I think you're right. Wikipedia is NOTNEWS BTW. In that case perhaps you can explain this edit, in which you added far more content on the strength of far less RS coverage. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
      • MONGO, perhaps you can clarify your contribution to this discussion. It's difficult to interpret it as anything other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT and Whataboutism.- MrX 🖋 20:21, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
        • I oppose adding further rhetoric to the matter. Since we sadly must rely on the NEWS as I did in the edit Mandruss points out, in my effort in June I tried to add a neutral treatise based on a source I thought most editors here would find suitable (in other words, not FoxNews). I don't like having to rely on NEWS but I do recognize we must since this article is mostly recentism issues, especially the issues of greatest concern. Be that as it might, I see no reason to expand wording but of course since this is the encyclopedia anyone (even those disinterested/incapable/too busy using the website for partisan purposes other than for substantive higher level work) can edit, we can be sure the body of the article will go into exhaustive details about this matter, and least that is more acceptable than turning the intro into a full court press attempt to malign this person.--MONGO (talk) 03:07, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
          • Thank you for clarifying that you consider widely-reported facts to be rhetoric; you consider things that have continued from 2015 to 2019 to be recent; you think this article is controlled by partisans who don't otherwise contribute to building the encyclopedia; and you object to content critical of Trump, in the lead.- MrX 🖋 13:21, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
            • Let's see: no, yes (since I am old), not totally but the talkpage might be, and no. But if selective reading is your forte and that still works for you then mush on lad.--MONGO (talk) 15:54, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support, and I suggest adopting the language I added some months ago, for which an editor hauled me before a tribunal and requested I be sentenced to death. heh soibangla (talk) 19:30, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

You going to share that language with us? Or should we just adopt it sight unseen? (Glad to hear you survived your inquisition.) 0;-D -- MelanieN (talk) 19:46, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

This language that was removed shows 1) it's a lifelong phenomenon; 2) it was well-known early in his candidacy; 3) it has continued well into his presidency, with figures showing the magnitude (5000) and frequency (125 in two hours, which we could update with more recent data, such as WaPo's 15 per day during 2018)

Trump has been known throughout his adult life to promote himself with hyperbole and falsehoods. Within six months of announcing his presidential candidacy, FactCheck.org declared him the "King of Whoppers," stating, "In the 12 years of FactCheck.org's existence, we've never seen his match." By the 20th month of his presidency, Washington Post fact checkers counted 5,000 instances of his false or misleading statements — including 125 during a single two-hour period.

soibangla (talk) 22:47, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I actually like that. For the article text, of course, not the lead. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:04, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

User:MelanieN — feel free to enjoy soiblangas creative writing, but I suggest you revisit the archive where it failed when it was current. Let’s not add resurrecting past issues to add to this mess. It’s big enough on its own. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:48, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support with "unprecedented". It's an improvement, but it doesn't sit well with me because the emphasis is wrong. The sheer number of falsehoods isn't that important; what's important is that dishonesty has been a hallmark of Trump's campaign and presidency and he seems to have little or no care for the truth. Surely we have sources that hit closer to the mark? R2 (bleep) 23:36, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
• Of course the data about Trump should be in the article. This is laughable. Let's remove everything bad about him and add only vague, general things so it seems like he in any way fulfilled his responsibilities and duties as a president, which every reliable source confirms he didn't. PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 03:17, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

If this is in response to my comment, please know that I support including stuff in this article about the number of falsehoods. We're talking about the lead here, which by the relevant guideline very much should include vague, general things since it's supposed to be a summary, not a collection of datapoints. R2 (bleep) 18:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - Don’t make an OR mixture. Keep it clean and simple, don’t mix two items. The campaign coverage is RS, anything else should be a separate line if significant enough to suit LEAD. Admixture with later and separate stories to make combined theories is OR, and there seems a soapboxing TALK to underline that. It seems he is basically the same as during the campaign, but that comparison just seems not a big news item among other choices. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:33, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support with "unprecedented". Support the change in principle but "a record number of" is wp:weasel -- when compared to other presidents? any person? etc. "Unprecedented" highlights how unusual Trump is in this regard, without saying "mostest". K.e.coffman (talk) 07:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Unprecedented is just as weasel, if not more so actually. PackMecEng (talk) 14:14, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

@PackMecEng: How so? The word is sourced, so what's the problem? How would you attempt to describe Trump's astonishing level of mendacity in a way that is palatable? -- Scjessey (talk) 14:18, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I would not use any weasel qualifiers as I mentioned in my vote above. The purpose of my comment here is if "a record number" is weasel then so is unprecedented. It is poor logic is all. Both are very well sourced to dozens of places heck we could probably source "omg mostest" but they are all still kind of weasel. Best to just leave it to the body to describe the extent of it all. PackMecEng (talk) 14:21, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Per above, support addition (with "record" or a similar word), but change "false or misleading" to "inaccurate". We have to cover his false/inaccurate statements, mildly inaccurate ones, distorted ones, unsubstantiated ones, but not "misleading" ones as that is POV. When he says a true thing that his opponents dislike, they call it "misleading" (source: every true thing he's ever said). wumbolo ^^^ 12:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

@Wumbolo: May I ask what sources you are reading that dispute that Trump has made numerous misleading claims? "Inaccurate" would not be an appropriate word to use as it would wrongly imply that Trump only occasionally makes minor mistakes.- MrX 🖋 13:09, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

May I ask what sources you have used that more than a couple of his false claims are major? wumbolo ^^^ 13:38, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

No, because I never claimed "more than a couple of his false claims are major". My assertion is that Trump made a record (or unprecedented) number of false or misleading statements.

• "When 2018 began, the president had made 1,989 false and misleading claims,... By the end of the year, Trump had accumulated more than 7,600 untruths during his presidency — averaging more than 15 erroneous claims a day during 2018, almost triple the rate from the year before."
• "Should Donald Trump’s advisers share the blame for his unprecedented record of untruths—or is the President alone accountable?"
• "...Trump hit a(nother) milestone: He topped 3,000 untrue or misleading statements in 466 days in office."
• "He has misleadingly said over 90 times that his promised wall along the southern border is being built (construction has not begun on any new section)."- MrX 🖋 13:56, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support amended wording with "a record number of false or misleading statements". However I would move to keep the sentence about free media coverage, because it was acknowledged (both by supporters and opponents) as a very important element of Trump's campaign. The sentence about false statements should stand on its own and be placed at the end of the campaign paragraph, where we transition into the presidency. — JFG ^talk 21:07, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

User:JFG Seems not supported by cites, predominantly they give big numbers and not say “record” or “unprecedented “. I don’t really view the counts as clear or solid measures, but at least its a specific thing a specific source prominently said. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:58, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Extended discussion: False/misleading

MrX, you suggested above that if anyone prefers a different wording, they create a subsection to this RfC. I would suggest instead that you follow the overwhelming opinion here, and strike the phrase about the number of falsehoods from your proposed sentence. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:00, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

OK, but echoing Objective3000's comment, I do think we need to express the magnitude of the falsehoods. I had previously written: "He continued to make thousands of false or misleading claims during his presidency.". Maybe there's a way to say "record breaking" and "thousands" in a couple of words.- MrX 🖋 18:07, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Modified Scjessey: Trump has made a record thousands of false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

That sounds pretty good to me.- MrX 🖋 18:24, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Works for me. O3000 (talk) 18:28, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

No. "a record thousands" is unclear and awkward. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:29, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Disagree, as it's structurally identical to Lotteries paid out a record $340 million in 2018. which seems quite natural. We're simply replacing a precise number with "thousands of". Proposed improvement? ―Mandruss ☎ 18:32, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Leave out "thousands" or any other number; among other problems, the counts include a separate tally for each time a particular false statement is repeated. Keep as currently proposed - simply "a record number" (thank you for the strikeout, MrX). -- MelanieN (talk) 18:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC) P.S. Have you ever seen a lottery say "we paid out a record millions of dollars"? Or an athlete described as "he threw a record dozens of interceptions"? -- MelanieN (talk) 18:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Now that I review the source[14] cited in the main article from which I borrowed "record", I'm not sure it's actually verifiable. I'm looking into this further...- MrX 🖋 18:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

MrX, thanks for pinging me. I wish I could remember what sources in the body justified that wording, but I can't. It certainly summarizes the conclusions of multiple fact checkers, who declare they have never seen a politician so dishonest. They never seen anyone like him. "Unprecedented" is certainly a word which can be used. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:48, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

The reporter who exposed Trump’s record-breaking lying ahead of midterms -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:14, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

the counts include a separate tally for each time a particular false statement is repeated, as they should. Repeating a falsehood is worse than stating it once. Repeating it twice is worse than repeating it once. And so on. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

If "record" demands a number, how about "unprecedented" instead? There's plenty of sourcing for that. Examples:

Sources

-- MelanieN (talk) 19:01, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Trump has made an unprecedented thousands of false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency. ? Fine with me. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Unprecedented sounds like WP:PUFFERY, while certainly supported by RS it does not fit. PackMecEng (talk) 19:28, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

where is the research to back up unprecedented or record except as the opinion of these writers do they have a total for all other presidents. עם ישראל חי (talk) 19:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Scroll up. It was added by MelanieN 40 minute before you posted you question.- MrX 🖋 19:56, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Doesn't answer my question have they looked at every utterance by previous presidents to see who lied more. So unless someone actually fact checks every statement by previous presidents words like record or unprecedented are just opinions and don't belong here. עם ישראל חי (talk) 20:23, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

That's not our concern, as long as we use reliable sources that have a solid reputation for fact checking, which we do. - MrX 🖋 20:27, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Unprecedented is OK, but a bit vague. I favor "thousands" or "nearly ten thousand", which gives readers a sense of how unprecedented this president's fibbing really is.- MrX 🖋 20:00, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

User:AmYisroelChai well yes it is puffery. Since it’s the first time anyone counted, obviously it’s a record or unprecedented. But it’s puffery by RS writers not by WP editors so it’s able to be included if they actually used that word, it suits WEIGHT, and is not OFFTOPIC of BLP. Many would obviously say bigger liars / lies were done in the past, see Bill Clinton, Reagan, LBJ, Nixon ... but that wasn’t reported back when via oddball opinion counting. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:59, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

It's not QUITE the first time anyone counted. George W. Bush and Barack Obama were also fact-checked, as were other politicians since around 2003. I agree that's a pretty small sample for formal fact-checking; previous presidents were only called out for occasional whoppers, not analyzed for everything they said. What makes Trump unique is that he says, and repeats over and over, so many quasi-factual claims that are simply not true in the real world. If there were presidents before him who did that, they precede living memory. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:50, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

if every utterance by previous presidents aren't fact checked then that statement is just an opinion. עם ישראל חי (talk) 17:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I’ve always thought the word unprecedented is used an unprecedented number of times. I’m OK with it here, but also prefer thousands, not only because the number is so high, but because it has been measured. Part of the reason the number of misstatements is so high is that no previous president has tweeted a dozen times a day. But, both volume and percentage matter, and both have been mentioned in RS, qualitatively in the case of percentage. O3000 (talk) 20:03, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

On reflection, I support Mandruss' proposal as a workable compromise: (Trump has made an unprecedented thousands of false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency.). - MrX 🖋 20:17, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Yuck. "An unprecedented thousands of" sounds like absolutely horrible English. I can just about stomach "an unprecedented number of" (assuming this is supported by sources). Perhaps this would be better:

During his campaign and presidency, fact checkers have noted Trump has made thousands of false or misleading statements.

-- Scjessey (talk) 22:25, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Agree that “unprecedented thousands” is awkward. “Thousands” alone is an understatement. But, I have no problem with an understatement in the lede fleshed out in the body (even though casual readers never get that far). O3000 (talk) 23:01, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Oppose the omission of the essential point per RS, which is that it's unprecedented, not that it's thousands. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:08, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

"Unprecendented" means without precedent; which is basically the same as "record".--Jack Upland (talk) 07:11, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

There seems to be some agreement to use "unprecedented" without any numerical reference. I can go along with that. I don't think we should include "fact checkers have noted" though. Trump's epic lying has been noted by many more people than just fact checkers. WP:YESPOV applies.- MrX 🖋 12:59, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Fine. How about this?

During his campaign and presidency, fact checkers have noted Trump has made an unprecedented number of false or misleading statements.

-- Scjessey (talk) 13:50, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Same complaint: I don't think we should include "fact checkers have noted" though. Trump's epic lying has been noted by many more people than just fact checkers. WP:YESPOV applies.- MrX 🖋 15:07, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

While I'd be delighted to remove that (During his campaign and presidency, Trump has made an unprecedented number of false or misleading statements.), I thought it would make it easier to attract support if we included it. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:10, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I like this version the best. No awkwardness like "unprecedented thousands" and no need to hedge it with "fact checkers said". We might consider adding a reference, a good strong one, since otherwise we will have people here at talk saying "who says?", five times a week for the duration of his presidency. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:01, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with MelanieN.- MrX 🖋 16:29, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Ok as to content. Oppose a citation:

1. This article has so far managed to remain citation-free in the lead. I like that. If the statement isn't unambiguously supported by sourced content in the body, that can be and should be corrected.

2. A citation wouldn't prevent people from insisting we need attribution, five times a week for the duration of his presidency. Alternatively,

3. I haven't seen a continuous stream of people saying "who says?" many of his public statements were controversial or false—content that has stood unchanged for a long time. Actually I haven't seen enough to recall any. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:49, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

OK, those are good points. I am striking the suggestion of a citation. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:28, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposed alternate wording

After extensive discussion above the following wording was proposed by Scjessey and immediately agreed-to by three other people, so I am posting it here as a proposed wording. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:27, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

• ALT1: During his campaign and presidency, Trump has made an unprecedented number of false or misleading statements.
• Support per discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:38, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose use of unprecedented. עם ישראל חי (talk) 18:10, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Many RS use this wording, and, although it doesn't really say just how unprecented (nearly every sentence contains some sort of falsehoood or misleading element), it's still useful content. His biographers and others who really know him say he lies with every breath, lies reflexively, and has no regard for truth. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:13, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose We do not need weasel words or qualifiers in the lead for this. That info can be found in the body where it belongs. PackMecEng (talk) 18:23, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

• Reliably-sourced wording is not weasel wording. That refers to editors adding such words. Since you object, please suggest better wording. "Unprecendented" isn't even opinion, but is how fact checkers summarize the actual statistics, IOW this is an evidence-based description of research findings. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:28, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

So PackMecEng, you would support During his campaign and presidency, Trump has made a number of false or misleading statements.? Considering that sources report that his lying is increasing in frequency, is unprecedented, and is deliberate, don't you think that wording might appear to our readers to be whitewashing the facts?- MrX 🖋 13:37, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I would support that phrasing of it. I am just not a fan of unprecedented. Between unprecedented and record I like record better from the main RFC. PackMecEng (talk) 13:48, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose This article is a BLP, not limited to his campaign and presidency. As shown in veracity, his looseness with truth dates back decades. It is a core defining characteristic of the man and the lede must reflect that with a full paragraph of at least two sentences containing some specificity. Anything less is a capitulation to a small number of partisans who have fought tooth and nail to prevent this truth from being acknowledged, evidently in an effort to drag WP into an alternate-reality post-truth age (Bannon: "the way to deal with [the press] is to flood the zone with shit.”). We don't need to wait for history books to be written to know this reality is staring us in the face right now. soibangla (talk) 18:29, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

• You may want to reconsider that. This moves things in the right direction. The ideal may have to wait. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:33, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

• This nonsense has gone on too long. The article will remain essentially a worthless whitewash until this key aspect of the man's persona is prominently presented in the lede, and no reasonable person should be willing to wait to read it in a history book.soibangla (talk) 18:49, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

• I don't disagree, but you need to be pragmatic here, because your firm idealism (which I share) may block progress. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:54, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

• Yep. Despite popular opinion, compromise is not a dirty word. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:02, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

• Soibangla, you are opposing because you think this isn't enough? You think there should be a full paragraph, in the LEAD, about his mendacity??? That's simply impossible; there is way too much else to say about him and his 70 years in the spotlight. A well-sourced sentence in the lead is all we can do; there isn't room for anything more. We do have a whole section in the text on the subject; that is enough for "history". -- MelanieN (talk) 20:49, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
• The proposed language is woefully inadequate to describe the core defining essence of the man, and if this language is adopted there will be some who will insist the matter is settled for all time and can never be revisited. If lede length is of concern, other parts of the lede can be trimmed/eliminated to make room for the most important aspect of his essence. This article must not be hijacked by a small cabal of partisan hacks who are in denial of reality. To allow them to succeed in this is to cowardly succumb to gaslighting. There, I said it. soibangla (talk) 22:26, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Off topic. Best discussed at a user talk page, or not at all.- MrX 🖋 23:41, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

The small cabal of partisan hacks includes more than several experienced editors known to be staunch Trump opponents. Not only is your comment completely out of line, helping lay foundation for a future topic ban, but it's demonstrably false. You don't get to lodge accusations like that without strong evidence, even without naming specific users. I suggest you alter your approach if you hope to continue editing in the AP area. There, I said it. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:45, 8 January 2019 (UTC) Just to be clear, I did not say/mean that everyone who supports the proposed language belongs to a small cabal of partisan hacks. Rather, some are acceding to a small cabal of partisan hacks for the sake of "compromise" on a matter that is unworthy of compromise. soibangla (talk) 23:02, 8 January 2019 (UTC) As the editor who introduced the word "compromise" in this thread, I can tell you that I "accede" to no one. Again, since I apparently wasn't clear enough the first time, you don't get to claim "a small cabal of partisan hacks" without evidence, period. If consistently taking a pro-Trump stance defines an editor as a partisan hack, that would have to work both ways, and about 90% of the editors in the AP area are partisan hacks on one side or the other—including, I'm fairly certain, you. So save the combative rhetoric, please. Somebody please collapse this off-topic starting at an appropriate point. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:16, 8 January 2019 (UTC) only someone who is pro Trump is a partisan hack anyone anti Trump is just an honest unbiased editor. עם ישראל חי (talk) 23:29, 8 January 2019 (UTC) True or false: Trump is the most fundamentally dishonest public figure in anyone's living memory. soibangla (talk) 23:39, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support per my previous comments. "Unprecedented" is not a WP:WEASEL word. It is word that describes something that has never happened before. Absent evidence to the contrary, we must rely on our multiple reliable sources that tell us that Trump's lying is unprecedented. There is no serious dispute of that fact.- MrX 🖋 18:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support, obviously. This is the nicest possible way Wikipedia can describe Trump's penchant for porky pies. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:06, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:49, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
• Almost support – I prefer the "record number" wording currently suggested in the RfC, rather than the "unprecedented" word, which has been much abused. (Remember "unpresidented" tweets?) — JFG ^talk 21:04, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support. I state my rationale further up. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:59, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose as both confusing the topic of free coverage, and as an unjustified OR conflation. Make it a second sentence that he has been criticised during his presidency for “thousands” and you’re drawing language of RS... But this just seems a creative writing drill, debating personal ideals and posturing rather than going after close PARAPHRASE of what most convey. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:05, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

  @Markbassett: What does "confusing the topic of free coverage" mean and in what part of the proposed text do you think is OR? Also, you mention that you prefer a "close PARAPHRASE". What would your version of that look like?- MrX 🖋 13:29, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

User:MrX The line is WP:OR as a WP:SYNTH mangling of disconnected items. This confuses or rather loses the long-standing message of ‘extensive free coverage due to controversial statements led to his nomination’ ... Though the wording on that after committee/consensus had wound up not so clear back when. The directive for close PARAPHRASE is a procedural one, the exact language of a notional second line depends on the topic of most WEIGHT and sources used. In that remark I was saying this thread seems crafting what should be said on individuals arguing, rather than on trying to honestly portray what the body of RS chose to say. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:46, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support. I slightly prefer record number. But, that won't make it. Unprecedented is clearly DUE and supported by a preponderance of RS. O3000 (talk) 01:22, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - Per a lot of comments above; using words like or terms like "most lies/inaccuracies" or "unprecedented number" is a bad idea, b/c a person or statement's level of "truthfulness" is a fundamentally subjective thing and hence can't be quantified. It's like saying "The Mona Lisa had an unprecedented amount of beauty". We can all agree the Mona Lisa is beautiful. But since there's no yard stick to measure beauty with, you can't really say it's the "most beautiful" or that its beauty is "unprecedented". NickCT (talk) 14:30, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

• NickCT, you say "no yard stick". Seriously? We aren't talking about beauty. Are you completely clueless about what fact checkers do? Are you clueless about the nature of facts, and the debunking of counterfactual statements? Members of the international union of fact checkers aren't expressing their opinions. They are documenting hard statistics. These are often countable things. When someone lies, it's relatively easy to document that fact, and Trump's untruthfulness is off-the-charts bad. He makes shit up, twists and misuses facts, and tells outright falsehoods constantly, quite literally. There is hardly a paragraph of anything he says which doesn't show a disregard for truth, so much so that we now "assume Trump's always lying and fact check him backward". Any editor who doesn't start with that assumption lacks competence to edit American politics here. Period. They aren't following RS, and they should. That's a pretty basic requirement for editing controversial subjects. Does anyone here dispute that?

So I ask again, are you completely clueless, just obtuse, and/or blindly defending Trump?It's OK to Say the President Is More Dishonest Than Other Politicians. It's the Truth. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:05, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Might want to take it down a notch there with the personal comments. PackMecEng (talk) 19:00, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Done. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:10, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

@NickCT: Reliable sources routinely use words like "unprecedented" and "record number" to objectively describe Trump's thousands of falsehoods. Pretending for a moment that we should not faithfully reflect those source in this article, what would your alternative proposal be for describing Trump's well-documented habit of frequently making false and misleading statements?- MrX 🖋 19:45, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

BullRangifer: What PackMecEng said. Please strike. Also, we do not "assume Trump is lying and work backwards" and nobody should. Each statement should be approached objectively.

NickCT: There may not be a yardstick to measure beauty, but there is one to measure truth or falsehood. That is not subjective, it is objective. It's called facts, the real world. We have not yet entered the "post-fact era," although some people seem to be trying to take us there. If Trump says "I never said X" and there is video of him saying X, that is a falsehood. If Trump says "several previous presidents told me they should have put up a wall", and all the living previous previous presidents say they did no such thing, that is a falsehood. If Trump says "Democrats said they prefer steel over concrete" or "There has been rioting against sanctuary cities in California" or "there are a record number of illegal immigrants crossing the southern border", those are falsehoods. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:57, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: - Kid, I've been reading fact-checking articles since you were diapers. Sit down and suck on your thumb a little more while the grown-ups talk.

@MrX: - re "routinely use words like "unprecedented" and "record number"" - Citation needed. re "what would your alternative proposal be" - I would do very little to change the current wording. Maybe change "many of his public statements were controversial or false." to "many of his public statements were controversial and received widespread criticism for being misleading or false.". That wording would basically mean that we (i.e. WP) aren't taking a position on his statement's "truthfulness", but merely noting that others have. Or maybe "His campaign generated a high level of controversy and many of his public statements received widespread criticism for being misleading or false."? Semi-colons are clunky grammar. And saying "received extensive free media coverage" seems silly and self-evident. Which campaign hasn't received extensive free media coverage?

@MelanieN: - re "there is one to measure truth or falsehood" - Most regular fact checkers use "scales" (e.g. the Pinocchio scale) to rate lies. That in and of itself is an admission that most statements aren't completely false or completely true, but instead exist somewhere in the ether of "truthiness". And I agree with you that certain things are objectively false. But you've got to consider that there are "big" lies and "little" lies. For example, me saying that I'm 6'8" versus, say, Mitt Romney/Trump saying they've paid taxes at a rate comparable to most Americans. Both of those are essentially objectively false, but lying about your height on the internet probably makes you less of liar than lying to the American people about whether you've paid taxes. Most folks grade fibs not just on the basis of whether they're true/false, but also on the basis of the impact of the lie. NickCT (talk) 13:57, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Nick, when BullRangifer made some inappropriate personal comments to you, he later struck them out. I suggest you do the same. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:41, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Done. Nick didn't deserve that, and I'm very sorry I let loose on him. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:47, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: You seem to have missed sentences 3&4 with your striking. @NickCT: Seconding MelanieN's request for you to strike as well. ~Awilley (talk) 22:11, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Fine. NickCT (talk) 00:29, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

How about the frequency and repetition of falsehoods? Trump averaged 15 falsehoods a day in 2018, he made 125 false or misleading statements in about 120 minutes, The Fact Checker has not identified statements from any other current elected official who meets the [Bottomless Pinocchio] standard other than Trump, 14 statements made by the president immediately qualify for the list. soibangla (talk) 18:31, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Look.... I'm not disagreeing that the scope and scale of the fibbing has increased. I'm just arguing that we shouldn't use adjectives which are quantifiable. We shouldn't say that "person A is a bigger liar than person B". It raises too many sticky questions about how to measure fibbing, which as I've said, is a somewhat subjective thing. NickCT (talk) 00:29, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I've repeatedly proposed a tight lede paragraph with some "meat" on it, and it's been repeatedly rejected, and we still can't even reach consensus on a single sentence with no meat. soibangla (talk) 04:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Trumps alleged distortions are mostly small taters compared to the whoppers of past Presidents, so number of lies is really just a silly game of distraction for those suffering from TDS. I mean, who can beat "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" or "if you like your health care plan you can keep it" or "fast and furious began under the bush administration" and I do not see thousand (s) or even 500 mentioned here.--MONGO (talk) 16:22, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Is this small taters? "There is no longer a Nuclear Threat from North Korea...I have solved that problem...sleep well tonight!" North Korea is moving ahead with its ballistic missile program at 16 hidden bases that have been identified in new commercial satellite images, a network long known to American intelligence agencies but left undiscussed as President Trump claims to have neutralized the North’s nuclear threat. soibangla (talk) 19:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Who can beat "if you like your health care plan you can keep it"? Trump can beat that one,, easily. During the campaign he promised a "big, beautiful health care plan that would take care of everybody."[15] In May 2017 he tweeted "...healthcare plan is on its way. Will have much lower premiums & deductibles while at the same time taking care of pre-existing conditions!"[16] He’s been president for two years now. Where is that health care plan? -- MelanieN (talk) 21:55, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

What about "I did not pay hush money to that woman" (paraphrasing here)? Just because Trump repeats falsehoods so much that each individual one cannot be replayed over and over doesn't mean they aren't whoppers. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:13, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I dunno...when a President lies so BIGLy he is impeached by the House that is as big as it gets...or lies so BIGly they are forced to resign. Let me know when Trump tops that. Some folks have nothing better to do than use their positions as "news writers" and "scholars" LOL to count every time someone doesn't confess to cutting down the cherry tree as the end of the world lie to beat all lies!--MONGO (talk) 14:02, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

@MONGO: - Presidents get impeached for criminal activity. Lying isn't a crime. Unless you do it under oath of course (e.g. Clinton). NickCT (talk) 15:52, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support. While other presidents and politicians also have made some false statements, the level of dishonesty here is unprecedented, and there is no shortage of reliable sources confirming that. Bradv🍁 16:30, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Amply and exhaustively supported by large number of high-quality sources; biographically and historically significant (indeed crucial). Claims that "all politicians lie" and thus we should omit this content just don't hold any water from the encyclopedic point of view; we gotta follow the sources on this. Neutrality^talk 04:17, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support well supported by numerous sources including academic ones. (e.g [17]). Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:13, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

GA nom?

After reading through this article, I think it should be good for GA status. However, seeing that it failed just over a month ago, I would like to request some opinions from other editors and or significant contributors. Thoughts? L293D (☎ • ✎) 20:19, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I think this article is too volatile to get GA status. It changes on a moments notice. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:22, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

This article is awful. It's shameful. This article abdicates its responsibility as a fair arbiter of truth. PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 03:16, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Articles must be stable and noncontroversial in tone and delivery and it therefore is no where near GA quality.--MONGO (talk) 03:18, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm pretty sure this fails the stability criterion. Looking at the article history, there have been a lot of recent reverts, and the article just came off full protection due to edit warring a week or two ago. I've found that ongoing controversial topics like these are often not good GA candidates.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 03:32, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

When doing GA reviews, the first 1st thing I look at is stability. This article is simple not stable enough to be featured as a good article. Sorry --DannyS712 (talk) 03:33, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Why did the GA nom fail before ? Has anything fixed those issues ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:05, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

The big reason was stability. When half the editors think it's accurate and the other half think it's ridiculous, it's going to be a problem I really don't think this will be stable enough to get GA for years to come. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:28, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

It's such a political firecracker that it's probably never going to get there. Cosmic Sans (talk) 16:16, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

@Markbassett: Looking at the last three good article nominations for this article, the primary reason for failing all of them was stability issues; that is, there was recent and persistent edit warring all three times. The stability issue hasn't been fixed and it's highly unlikely that it will be anytime soon, unfortunately.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 17:38, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Not Democratically Elected

The article should mention Trump isn't democratically elected, as he lost the democratic vote and only won due to the electoral college.2001:8003:3800:800:31C8:CA3A:2763:15D2 (talk) 09:57, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

We mention the fact that he lost the popular vote both in the lead and in the body of the article. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:20, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

According to the US Constitution, he was democratically elected. GoodDay (talk) 16:10, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Every President "only wins" due to the electoral college. We keep track of the nationwide popular vote but it has no bearing from a legal perspective as to who is elected President. Cosmic Sans (talk) 16:17, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

All other reasoning aside, we can include that if there are sufficient reliable sources to support the language "isn't democratically elected". The more controversial a statement, the more RS support we need. So kindly provide five high-quality reliable sources that say Trump "isn't democratically elected". No opinion pieces, please. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:16, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

A footnote explains the constitutionally-mandated process of the United States' presidential elections. Some people may not like it but that's the process. Claiming that Trump was not democratically elected is just plain ridiculous. — JFG ^talk 21:09, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Nah. I might agree with my personal concept of the term. But, as Mandruss said, we need a preponderance of RS. Democracy has always been a fuzzy concept. O3000 (talk) 01:18, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

Withdrawn — JFG talk 21:01, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: ElectoralCollege2016.svg Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:24, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Emphasis on dishonesty

For future discussions regarding how much emphasis we should put on Trump's dishonesty: "At this point, the falsehoods are as much a part of his political identity as his floppy orange hair and the “Make America Great Again” slogan." [18] R2 (bleep) 18:10, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, but how many times can we say that he's a lying liar who lies before (1) it's beating a dead horse and (2) it starts to look like there's an agenda at play. Cosmic Sans (talk) 18:29, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

One source of many saying very similar things. We already have wide agreement on that, which is why nobody has bothered to officially challenge the existence of an entire Wikipedia article devoted to exactly that. What's your point? ―Mandruss ☎ 18:35, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

that article seems more a POV fork / attack page with sardonic titling, whose existence actually was challenged, but at any rate it’s not BLP in nature so not much there for here meh. Markbassett (talk) 03:09, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Mentioned several times throughout the article. Also I would use a stronger source then "a weekly column on life in Trump’s Washington". They are easy to find these days we do not need opinion articles for it. PackMecEng (talk) 18:42, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Focus on the border wall?

I was reading this article and wanting to put something about his Oval Office Address to the Nation tonight in it but wasn't sure where. I figured there was a section focusing on the government shutdown and his striving to get funding for the border wall but it seems there isn't much focus on this here. Where would I put this information about his address to the nation and could we possibly look into adding a section about the border wall and the government shutdown? Thanks Brboyle (talk) 02:25, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Brboyle I would suggest in the Presidency article, not here. And I think there really should be a 48 hour waiting period so... kind of too soon to say much. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:12, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Dossier renaming

Editors are invited to participate in the proposed move of Trump–Russia dossier to Steele dossier, at Talk:Trump–Russia dossier#Requested move 28 December 2018. — JFG ^talk 10:38, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Proud to shut down the government

According to publications, he is "proud to shut down the government over the wall" [19],[20]. This is very important and I think should be noted on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 11:20, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM - MrX 🖋 12:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

In light of the fact that the Democrat leadership is unwilling to even compromise he has every reason to be proud of it. Never mind that democrats have funded over voters protest pork barrel spending for big holes in Boston, viaducts in Seattle and trains to nowhere in California to the tune of tens to a 100 billion bucks, spending 5.6 billion on border security is chump change. So yes, sure we can include what you suggest.--MONGO (talk) 11:26, 10 January 2019 (UTC) @MONGO: I shouldn't really reply to your obviously FORUMy response, but I can't help myself. Republicans are responsible for the biggest, most expensive, and most worthless piece of pork barrel spending in American history: the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II. They're also responsible for this multi-trillion dollar monstrosity, and this bottomless pit of money that still hasn't left the pad. And just recently, they gave away over a trillion dollars of taxpayers money to extremely wealthy people and corporations, ballooning the deficit (as Republicans seem to love doing on their watch) and the National Debt. Also, remember there was bipartisan agreement on a bill that even Mike Pence said Trump would sign, and then Trump changed his mind after getting harassed by some right wing radio commentators and blew the whole deal up, and this was after the previous bipartisan agreement on immigration that Trump also scuppered at the the last minute. So let's not pretend for a nanosecond that Democrats should be blamed for any of this mess. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:12, 10 January 2019 (UTC) Well said! I agree with every word. My very best wishes (talk) 05:01, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes include it since it is referenced to CNN, one of the most esteemed sources available.--MONGO (talk) 15:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree. I have added a brief few sentences about it, but I opted not to use CNN as a source.- MrX 🖋 16:33, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

This is lovely..you deserve a Jr. Editor's Achievement barnstar. Kudos most bold one.--MONGO (talk) 17:04, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

<blush>I have so many people to thank... my agent, my producer, my third grade teacher Mrs. Scott, my fencing instructor who used to whack me on the butt with a foil, all the admins and IP editors who sacrificed so much so that information could be free... you're all heros today. This barnstar is for you!- MrX 🖋 17:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Good addition by MrX and others. This shutdown is highly notable and really a big deal for a lot of people. My very best wishes (talk) 18:17, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Looks like Trump is breaking all the yuge records - really gunning for that longest shutdown - so much winning! Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:37, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Winning is everything!--MONGO (talk) 20:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

This sentence is very unclear: The House and Senate lacked votes necessary to support his funding demand and to overcome Trump's refusal to sign the appropriations last passed by Congress into law. "passed by Congress into law" makes no sense; something passed by Congress doesn't become law until the president signs it. The actual situation seems to be: The House and Senate were willing to pass (and did pass, but separately in separate sessions of Congress) short-term funding for DHS and full funding for the other departments, but Trump said he would not sign such bills if they did not include funding for the wall. How can we say that? How do the sources say it? -- MelanieN (talk) 21:33, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, it is a bit wonky. I think what it's trying to say is that there are insufficient votes in congress supporting funding of Trump's wall and there are insufficient votes in congress to override a veto. - MrX 🖋 21:48, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Here's is the Washington Post's summary:

Democrats can use their House majority — or a Senate filibuster — to stall any legislation that includes additional money for a wall. Trump can veto any bill that doesn’t, and Senate Republicans have said they won’t advance any legislation that lacks the president’s blessing.
— The Washington Post

- MrX 🖋 22:01, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, that's much clearer. We could paraphrase that. Alternatively, here is something I came up with: Both houses of Congress appeared willing to approve spending bills for most agencies and a short-term extension for DHS, but Trump said he would not sign any such bill if it did not include funding for the wall. [21] -- MelanieN (talk) 22:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

How about this as a summary of the WaPo item quoted above? Trump said he will not accept any bill that does not include funding for the wall, and Democrats - who now control the House - said they will not support any bill that does, while Senate Republicans refused to allow a vote on any bill that Trump does not support. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

That's good MelanieN, but perhaps it should be in past tense?- MrX 🖋 22:54, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Good point. Changing. Or would you prefer present perfect (has said, have refused)? -- MelanieN (talk) 23:15, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Whatever you think is best. I don't have a strong opinion either way.- MrX 🖋 00:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

We seem to be the only people that care, so I am going to insert the WaPo-based sentence. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:30, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I will revise. Holding off (a) pulling in other RS views or (b) putting it into the RS order or (c) doing more of a draw from the RS. Will just shift wording to better consistency in handling by changing 'refused' into the ‘said they will not advance’ to match that the others were "said" phrased, and keeping WaPo but dropping CNN since that doesn't support this line. (A ‘refused to allow’ ia bit heated language and also gives wrong impression as the House bills do not literally get voted on in Senate or is there a direct refusal.) It's still uncomfortably far from what the WaPo cite said and how they said it, or what RS in general say. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Did some copyedit; the text said "shutdown" too many times. — JFG ^talk 14:21, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

That looks splendid.--MONGO (talk) 15:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

It looks good. Thanks.- MrX 🖋 16:06, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I do not think it belongs to "Immigration". Yes, it had happen allegedly due to the border wall dispute, but this is actually a separate important event. It is not about immigration at all, but about US political system, government and decisions by the subject of the page. I would place it as a separate section between "Impeachment efforts" and "2020 presidential campaign". My very best wishes (talk) 17:19, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Sure it does. The nearly sole obstacle that is keeping the government shut down is the obstinacy of the Democratic leadership most of whom previously supported a wall or at the very least, tighter constraints on illegal immigration. Trump isn't going to cave into a bunch of far left zealots hell bent on reversing their previous positions just for the sake of being obstructionists. [22]--MONGO (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I now can see why it was included in the immigration section [23]. Speaking about the blame, yes, there are very significant differences between Democrats and Republicans. But why the government people should be used as hostages? Who is guilty? Democrats in the House singed the bills to resume the work of the government. Moreover, this should be the Congress, not the President who decides the budget. So the another side is guilty, or at least it seems this way to someone relatively unfamiliar with US politics like myself. My very best wishes (talk) 20:21, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

"The nearly sole obstacle that is keeping the government shut down is the obstinacy of the Democratic leadership..." I'm really tired of reading bullshit like this. Go and start a blog or something, MONGO, if you feel the need to blurt this Mirror Universe crap out all the damn time. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:17, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

"Management Style" section

I've removed the following content recently added by Soibangla:

Trump reportedly eschews reading detailed briefing documents, including the President's Daily Brief, in favor of receiving oral briefings. He is also known to acquire information by watching up to eight hours of television each day, most notably Fox News programs such as Fox & Friends and Hannity, whose broadcast talking points Trump sometimes repeats in public statements, particularly in early morning tweets. Trump has reportedly fostered chaos as a management technique, resulting in low morale and policy confusion among his staff, although he has maintained his White House runs like a "well-oiled machine." Jeffrey Pfeffer, professor of organizational behavior at Stanford, noted that Trump possesses several management qualities that are prevalent among many leaders, including narcissism and dishonesty, but added, "With a modicum of management skill he could have gotten his wall, and he would probably be on the path to re-election. But he has very few accomplishments to his credit.” Presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin found Trump lacks several traits of an effective leader, including “humility, acknowledging errors, shouldering blame and learning from mistakes, empathy, resilience, collaboration, connecting with people and controlling unproductive emotions.” The New York Times reported that "before taking office, Mr. Trump told top aides to think of each presidential day as an episode in a television show in which he vanquishes rivals."

References

First off, it's excessive weight to the latest news-story-of-the-day, in this case quotes from people (Jeffery Pfeffer, I note that article is full of unsourced puffery) in a NYTimes article. Second, a collection of personality assessments is barely a "management style" and it's certainly not about his presidency. If his tweets repeating Fox & Friends points are important, they can go under "Social Media". power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I'd appreciate if you would self-revert this edit, which immediately takes action on the reversion you just made before anyone has had even ten minutes to read and comment on it. Thank you. soibangla (talk) 00:15, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure why you want me to self-revert, but sure. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:23, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

By taking immediate action before any discussion, you are making your preferences a fait accompli.soibangla (talk) 00:26, 12 January 2019 (UTC)