Talk:Donald Trump

Highlighted open discussions

• None.

Current consensus

NOTE: It is recommended to link to this list in your edit summary when reverting, as:
[[Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensus|current consensus]] item [n]
To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to .

01. Use the official White House portrait as the infobox image. (Dec 2016, Jan 2017, Oct 2017, March 2020) (temporarily suspended by #19 following copyright issues on the inauguration portrait, enforced when an official public-domain portrait was released on 31 October 2017)

02. Show birthplace as "Queens, New York City, U.S." in the infobox. (Nov 2016, Oct 2018, Feb 2021) "New York City" de-linked. (September 2020)

03. Omit reference to county-level election statistics. (Dec 2016)

04. Superseded by #15

Lead phrasing of Trump "gaining a majority of the U.S. Electoral College" and "receiving a smaller share of the popular vote nationwide", without quoting numbers. (Nov 2016, Dec 2016) (Superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)

05. Use Trump's annual net worth evaluation and matching ranking, from the Forbes list of billionaires, not from monthly or "live" estimates. (Oct 2016) In the lead section, just write: Forbes estimates his net worth to be [$x.x] billion. (July 2018, July 2018) Removed from the lead per #47.

06. Do not include allegations of sexual misconduct in the lead section. (June 2016, Feb 2018)

07. Superseded by #35

Include "Many of his public statements were controversial or false." in the lead. (Sep 2016, February 2017, wording shortened per April 2017, upheld with July 2018) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019)

08. Mention that Trump is the first president elected "without prior military or government service". (Dec 2016)

09. Include a link to Trump's Twitter account in the "External links" section. (Jan 2017) Include a link to an archive of Trump's Twitter account in the "External links" section. (Jan 2021)

10. Keep Barron Trump's name in the list of children and wikilink it, which redirects to his section in Family of Donald Trump per AfD consensus. (Jan 2017, Nov 2016)

11. Superseded by #17

The lead sentence is "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman, television personality, politician, and the 45th President of the United States." (Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017) (superseded by #17 since 2 April 2017)

12. The article title is Donald Trump, not Donald J. Trump. (RM Jan 2017, RM June 2019)

13. Auto-archival is set for discussions with no comments for 14 days. Manual archival is allowed for (1) closed discussions, 24 hours after the closure, provided the closure has not been challenged, and (2) "answered" edit requests, 24 hours after the "answer", provided there has been no follow-on discussion after the "answer". (Jan 2017) (amended with respect to manual archiving, to better reflect common practice at this article) (Nov 2019)

14. Omit mention of Trump's alleged bathmophobia/fear of slopes. (Feb 2017)

15. Superseded by lead rewrite

Supersedes #4. There is no consensus to change the formulation of the paragraph which summarizes election results in the lead (starting with "Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, …"). Accordingly the pre-RfC text (Diff 8 Jan 2017) has been restored, with minor adjustments to past tense (Diff 11 Feb 2018). No new changes should be applied without debate. (RfC Feb 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017, Feb 2017) In particular, there is no consensus to include any wording akin to "losing the popular vote". (RfC March 2017) (Superseded by local consensus on 26 May 2017 and lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017)

16. Superseded by lead rewrite

Do not mention Russian influence on the presidential election in the lead section. (RfC March 2017) (Superseded by lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017)

17. Superseded by #50

Supersedes #11. The lead paragraph is "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current president of the United States. Before entering politics, he was a businessman and television personality." The hatnote is simply {{Other uses}}. (April 2017, RfC April 2017, April 2017, April 2017, April 2017, July 2017, Dec 2018) Amended by lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017 and removal of inauguration date on 4 July 2018. Lower-case "p" in "president" per Dec 2018 and MOS:JOBTITLES RfC Oct 2017. Wikilinks modified per April 2020. Wikilink modified again per July 2020. "45th" de-linked. (Jan 2021)

18. Superseded by #63

The "Alma mater" infobox entry shows "Wharton School (BS Econ.)", does not mention Fordham University. (April 2017, April 2017, Aug 2020, Dec 2020)

19. Obsolete

Following deletion of Trump's official White House portrait for copyright reasons on 2 June 2017, infobox image was replaced by File:Donald Trump Pentagon 2017.jpg. (June 2017 for replacement, June 2017, declined REFUND on 11 June 2017) (replaced by White House official public-domain portrait according to #1 since 31 Oct 2017)

20. Mention protests in the lead section with this exact wording: His election and policies have sparked numerous protests. (June 2017, May 2018) (Note: In February 2021, when he was no longer president, the verb tense was changed from "have sparked" to "sparked", without objection.)

21. Superseded by #39

Omit any opinions about Trump's psychology held by mental health academics or professionals who have not examined him. (July 2017, Aug 2017) (superseded by #36 on 18 June 2019, then by #39 since 20 Aug 2019)

22. Do not call Trump a "liar" in Wikipedia's voice. Falsehoods he uttered can be mentioned, while being mindful of calling them "lies", which implies malicious intent. (RfC Aug 2017)

23. Superseded by #52

The lead includes the following sentence: Trump ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, citing security concerns; after legal challenges, the Supreme Court upheld the policy's third revision. (Aug 2017, Nov 2017, Dec 2017, Jan 2018, Jan 2018) Wording updated (July 2018) and again (Sep 2018).

24. Superseded by #30

Do not include allegations of racism in the lead. (Feb 2018) (superseded by #30 since 16 Aug 2018)

25. Do not add web archives to cited sources which are not dead. (Dec 2017, March 2018)

26. Do not include opinions by Michael Hayden and Michael Morell that Trump is a "useful fool […] manipulated by Moscow" or an "unwitting agent of the Russian Federation". (RfC April 2018)

27. State that Trump falsely claimed that Hillary Clinton started the Barack Obama birther rumors. (April 2018, June 2018)

28. Include, in the Wealth section, a sentence on Jonathan Greenberg's allegation that Trump deceived him in order to get on the Forbes 400 list. (June 2018, June 2018)

29. Include material about the Trump administration family separation policy in the article. (June 2018)

30. Supersedes #24. The lead includes: "Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist." (RfC Sep 2018, Oct 2018, RfC May 2019)

31. Do not mention Trump's office space donation to Jesse Jackson's Rainbow/Push Coalition in 1999. (Nov 2018)

32. Omit from the lead the fact that Trump is the first sitting U.S. president to meet with a North Korean supreme leader. (RfC July 2018, Nov 2018)

33. Do not mention "birtherism" in the lead section. (RfC Nov 2018)

34. Refer to Ivana Zelníčková as a Czech model, with a link to Czechs (people), not Czechoslovakia (country). (Jan 2019)

35. Superseded by #49

Supersedes #7. Include in the lead: Trump has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency. The statements have been documented by fact-checkers, and the media have widely described the phenomenon as unprecedented in American politics. (RfC Feb 2019)

36. Superseded by #39

Include one paragraph merged from Health of Donald Trump describing views about Trump's psychology expressed by public figures, media sources, and mental health professionals who have not examined him. (June 2019) (paragraph removed per RfC Aug 2019 yielding consensus #39)

37. Resolved: Content related to Trump's presidency should be limited to summary-level about things that are likely to have a lasting impact on his life and/or long-term presidential legacy. If something is borderline or debatable, the resolution does not apply. (June 2019)

38. Do not state in the lead that Trump is the wealthiest U.S. president ever. (RfC June 2019)

39. Supersedes #21 and #36. Do not include any paragraph regarding Trump's mental health or mental fitness for office. Do not bring up for discussion again until an announced formal diagnosis or WP:MEDRS-level sources are provided. This does not prevent inclusion of content about temperamental fitness for office. (RfC Aug 2019, July 2021)

40. Include, when discussing Trump's exercise or the lack thereof: He has called golfing his "primary form of exercise", although he usually does not walk the course. He considers exercise a waste of energy, because he believes the body is "like a battery, with a finite amount of energy" which is depleted by exercise. (RfC Aug 2019)

41. Omit book authorship (or lack thereof) from the lead section. (RfC Nov 2019)

42. House and Senate outcomes of the impeachment process are separated by a full stop. For example: He was impeached by the House on December 18, 2019, for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. He was acquitted of both charges by the Senate on February 5, 2020. (Feb 2020)

43. The rules for edits to the lead are no different from those for edits below the lead. For edits that do not conflict with existing consensus: Prior consensus is NOT required. BOLD edits are allowed, subject to normal BRD process. The mere fact that an edit has not been discussed is not a valid reason to revert it. (March 2020)

44. The lead section should mention North Korea, focusing on Trump's meetings with Kim and some degree of clarification that they haven't produced clear results. (RfC May 2020)

45. Superseded by #48

There is no consensus to mention the COVID-19 pandemic in the lead section. (RfC May 2020, July 2020) (Superseded by RfC Aug 2020)

46. Use the caption "Official portrait, 2017" for the infobox image. (Aug 2020, Jan 2021)

47. Do not mention Trump's net worth or Forbes ranking (or equivalents from other publications) in the lead, nor in the infobox. (Sep 2020)

48. Supersedes #45. Trump's reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic should be mentioned in the lead section. There is no consensus on specific wording, but the status quo is Trump reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic; he minimized the threat, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, and promoted false information about unproven treatments and the availability of testing. (Oct 2020, RfC Aug 2020)

49. Supersedes #35. Include in lead: Trump has made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics. (Dec 2020)

50. Supersedes #17. The lead sentence is: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. (March 2021), amended (July 2021), inclusion of politician (RfC September 2021)

51. Include in the lead that many of Trump's comments and actions have been characterized as misogynistic. (Aug 2021 and Sep 2021)

52. Supersedes #23. The lead should contain a summary of Trump's actions on immigration, including the Muslim travel ban (cf. item 23), the wall, and the family separation policy. (September 2021)

53. The lead should mention that Trump promotes conspiracy theories. (October 2021)

54. Include in the lead that, quote, Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in U.S. history. (October 2021)

55. Regarding Trump's comments on the 2017 far-right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, do not wiki-link "Trump's comments" in this manner. (RfC December 2021)

56. Retain the content that Trump never confronted Putin over its alleged bounties against American soldiers in Afghanistan but add context. Current wording can be altered or contextualized; no consensus was achieved on alternate wordings. (RfC November 2021) Trump's expressions of doubt regarding the Russian Bounties Program should be included in some capacity, though there there is no consensus on a specific way to characterize these expressed doubts. (RfC March 2022)

57. Do not mention in the lead Gallup polling that states Trump's the only president to never reach 50% approval rating. (RfC January 2022)

58. Use inline citations in the lead for the more contentious and controversial statements. Editors should further discuss which sentences would benefit from having inline citations. (RfC May 2022, discussion on what to cite May 2022)

59. Do not label or categorize Trump as a far-right politician. (RfC August 2022)

60. Insert the links described in the RfC January 2023.

61. When a thread is started with a general assertion that the article is biased for or against Trump (i.e., without a specific, policy-based suggestion for a change to the article), it is to be handled as follows:

1. Reply briefly with a link to Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias.
2. Close the thread using {{archive top}} and {{archive bottom}}, referring to this consensus item.
3. Wait at least 24 hours per current consensus #13.
4. Manually archive the thread.

This does not apply to posts that are clearly in bad faith, which are to be removed on sight. (May 2023)

62. The article's description of the five people who died during and subsequent to the January 6 Capitol attack should avoid a) mentioning the causes of death and b) an explicit mention of the Capitol Police Officer who died. (RfC July 2023)

63. Supersedes #18. The alma mater field of the infobox reads: "University of Pennsylvania (BS)". (September 2023)

64. Omit the {{Very long}} tag. (January 2024)

65. Mention the Abraham Accords in the article; no consensus was achieved on specific wordings. (RfC February 2024)

Veracity graphs

Uninvolved close requested at WP:ANRFC.[1] ―Mandruss ☎ 16:40, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

"Thumbnail" of image in question.
Suggested caption:
Fact-checkers from The Washington Post and the Toronto Star compiled data on "false or misleading claims", and "false claims", respectively. The peaks in late 2018 correspond to the midterm elections, and in late 2019 to his impeachment inquiry. The Post reported 15,413 false or misleading claims in 1,055 days, an average of about 14.6 per day.

• Strong support - I am strongly in favor of retaining the false or misleading claims graphs added by RCraig09. This is an excellent format for conveying information in an online encyclopedia. If anyone feels it clutters the article, I suggest removing any of the building photos (this is not an article about buildings) or we could remove any of the generic images of Trump speaking.- MrX 🖋 19:08, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Graphs are detail data and would appear to be inconsistent with the "summary-level" part of #Current consensus #37. The graphs are already in the Veracity article for readers interested in that level of detail, easily accessible via the {{Main}} hatnote. My objection has little to do with clutter (although file size remains a nagging problem) and I am not opposed to removing any images that serve more to decorate than inform. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:13, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

  The graph is a summary of the underlying falsehoods. Your objection would be valid if we listed the actual lies in the graphic. This is possibly the most compact way of conveying the magnitude and significance of of Trump's lying, without being excessively verbose.- MrX 🖋 19:55, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

  The magnitude and significance are already adequately conveyed in the prose – including the midterm-election spike – including specific counts and averages. The graphs add nothing except finer granularity, which is excessive detail for this article. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:13, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

  That doesn't take into consideration people who seek visual information. The same argument you're making could be made about any other image in the article, the infobox, or the electoral map which is only tangentially related to the subject but at least as detailed as these lie graphs. why are you being selective in applying Rule 37?- MrX 🖋 20:20, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

  I fully support broad application of #37, but I don't run the place. My time and energy being limited, I am more inclined to oppose addition of new violations than to propose elimination of long-existing violations. The existence of bad stuff is never an excuse for more bad stuff. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:40, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

  That doesn't take into consideration people who seek visual information. Said visual information is available in the Veracity article – as it stands today, in the lead of the Veracity article. I pray my mind will never become capable of holding the contradiction that we should spend tons of time developing Trump sub-articles while making decisions based on the assumption that they won't be read, that {{Main}} hatnote links won't be clicked. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:55, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. In any case, disputed content should be omitted pending consensus to include it, so I think you should self-revert, MrX. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:45, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

  I have removed it, pending resolution of this discussion. (I originally created and posted it.) —RCraig09 (talk) 19:59, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - Fine detail of this nature should be omitted in favor shunting it to the supporting articles, per WP:SS. These wee little thumbnails do not do the data justice anyway. And Mandruss is absolutely correct in that the default position should be for the exclusion of challenged material. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:51, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

  What do you mean by "fine detail"? - MrX 🖋 19:55, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

  "Trump tells porky pies" is a good summary. Actual numbers displayed in graph form is "fine detail". Also, I don't really think it adds anything useful to the accompanying text. They are absolutely useful in the context of the main veracity article though. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:09, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

  Sorry, but I don't think using Cockney slang in an article about the U.S. President is a good idea. I wonder why you are not opposed to other similarly-summarized information in the article, like the electoral map. Why this, but not that?- MrX 🖋 20:27, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

  Obviously I'm not suggesting Cockney Rhyming Slang is used in the article. My point is that the graph represents more detail than is necessary for a summary. And I did not weigh in on "other similarly-summarized information" in my response because I haven't considered them. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:43, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

  @Scjessey: From File:2017- Donald Trump - graph - false or misleading claims.png I've removed the "actual numbers displayed in graph form". (You may have to refresh your browser or clear your cache to see the most recent version.) This is an elementary and simple graph that adds visual indication of the intensifying trend of falsehoods that isn't conveyed by text. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:47, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

  It makes absolutely no difference to my view that the graphs should be excluded. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:49, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

  That's a conclusion; not reasoning. And "adding visual appeal" (below) is less important in an encyclopedia than the substance of the intensifying trend of falsehoods. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:56, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

  I don't actually see why we need to visually show this "intensifying trend" in the first place. The prose adequately explains the situation, and readers can go to the dedicated veracity article for specifics. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:58, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

  @Scjessey: The key word you use is "show"—as in the meaning of "convey". Per another editor: "a picture is worth a thousand words", and a graphic visually shows in an instant what text takes much longer to convey. Another editor also notes that many/most WP readers won't read longer texts but are drawn to images (you mention "visual appeal"). Again: this image—which is not "tiny"—conveys in an instant the falsehood intensification as a summary; clicking on the image lets readers investigate details. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

  @RCraig09: The graphs are trying to convey details about Trump's mendacity that are over and above what one would normally consider part of a summary. They are, however, ideal for the article that is specifically about Trump's mendacity. To answer your response about the size of the graphs, they are tiny. I would rather have the user click on the LINK TO THE ARTICLE for more information, than click on the link to the larger versions of the graphs. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:32, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

  @Scjessey: "Tiny" (thumbnail) chart: easy for even lazy readers to instantly see extent and trend. Clicked-on graph: shows details. Yes, charts are also ideal for the Veracity sub-article, but ideal here because a picture instantly conveys as much as the proverbial "1000 words". Also, it's easier for the public to click-on-a-pic than go to another whole article to read. —RCraig09 (talk) 18:52, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

  You're making circular arguments and entirely missing the point. WE DON'T NEED TO SEE THE EXTENT AND TREND to understand Trump is a liar at an unprecedented level, because we ALREADY USE THE WORD "UNPRECEDENTED". Please read and inwardly digest WP:SS. If you read it and still don't understand my objection for including the graphs, there will be no point in further discussion. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:46, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Strong support. The charts immediately, visually convey a significant veracity trend—and without being "too detailed". Regarding Consensus Item 37: the historic levels and conspicuous escalation pattern of false claims are definitely "likely to have a lasting impact on his life and/or long-term presidential legacy", and probably on the presidency itself. Disclosure: I am the one who created and uploaded the chart. 19:56, 5 November 2019 (UTC) Supplemental: Consensus^2019-11-19 (see "Discussion summary", below) recognizes that visuals are superior to text.^{(sourced explanation, FYI)} The two main Opposers argue that the chart is too detailed for this 'parent' article, despite the longtime presence (implied consensus) of an electoral map and excruciating textual detail in the second paragraph of the "False statements" section—which text the two Opposers actually disagree about (here and here). Accordingly, it's a question about "where to draw the detailed-vs-summary line", about which consensus has spoken (see "Discussion summary", below). —Updated RCraig09 (talk) 20:02, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

  Perhaps, but they are not summary level no matter how you cut it. If you're going to cite #37, please consider all of it. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:04, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

  They are summary level. Non-summary level would be a listing of all 13k+ lies. Also, knowing how the lies are distributed over time is extremely useful information.- MrX 🖋 20:23, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

  @Mandruss: Which part of Consensus #37 do you think I did not consider? The chart is an excellent summary of Trump's historic >13,000 falsehoods; a list of falsehoods themselves would violate #37. I can remove have removed the numbers in the top graph, if that's what you're concerned about. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:29, 5 November 2019 (UTC) updated RCraig09 (talk) 20:58, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

  I agree the chart is summary material full of factual content. I also note that this article has at least half a dozen photos of nothing in particular, or visually poor photos that should be removed. We can't be thinking that e.g. the picture of the Turkey ribbon-cutting or a golf clubhouse is better encyclopedic content than an info-graphic. SPECIFICO talk 20:38, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

  You do, unfortunately, need some random images to give the article some visual appeal, but tiny little graphs are not it. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:44, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

  Nothing unfortunate about great images. Bad ones in Saudi, Chicago tower, or generic Hollywood Star not so much. There must be a better less cluttered inaugural photo, btw. SPECIFICO talk 21:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

  Images are not decorations (MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE). It sounds like the size of the graph is your main concern. DYK you can click on it to make it bigger?- MrX 🖋 21:30, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

  @RCraig09 - One could always argue that something is "summary level" provided it doesn't include every detail that is available and belongs anywhere in the encyclopedia. I'm the one who proposed #37, but it's proving to be too vague to be useful and I now regret doing so. This is shaking out as one question – How much detail is too much detail for this top-level biography? – and I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that.

  But the issue is larger than the immediate one about these graphs. Trump is not a career politician and this article should not be guided by what our articles on career-politician presidents have done. His presidency may be the most prominent part of his life – and there is a strong unencyclopedic desire to use this article for maximum visibility of recentist content about his presidency – but it is far from all of his life and this article devotes far too much space to it in my strong opinion. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:55, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

  As opposed to all the things that could be removed from a biography, incidental achievements, secondary presidential actions, etc. this is content about his core personal style. It would be better if the chart went back to his early public days -- e.g. starting with the demolition of the protected art works at the Trump Tower site, but he was not being so closely fact-checked then. SPECIFICO talk 22:06, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

  Seems a bit non sequiturish. Nobody disputes that it's about his core personal style; in dispute is whether it's too much detail about his core personal style for this top-level bio. I continue to view articles including Veracity as extensions of this article that are separate articles only for technical reasons related to article size. I could imagine software support for linking to them from this table of contents, but the support is to use {{Main}} instead. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:24, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

  It's not merely his "personal style". For decades to come, his presidency will be what WP readers will search for, and it's likely he'll be remembered most for openly validating the post-truth era from the world's most powerful office. Think Nixon. —RCraig09 (talk) 23:48, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

  It's a mistake to think Nixon, as I said above. As I've said in multiple other places, this is not Wikipedia's only article about Trump, it's merely the top-level one and it provides easy links to others including Veracity. We have now achieved circularity. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:57, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

  @Mandruss: I was referring to Nixon's legacy in real life, not WP articles themselves. I don't know anything that captures for future generations of WP readers, Trump's intensifying falsehoods faster or better, at a summary level, than this graphic. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:15, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Re Table: @Mandruss: Only 3 of 5 commenters here have entered bolded text at the beginning of their posts. It's not clear. The Table helps with gauging consensus, and strength of opinion, and doesn't violate WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. Please replace it. —RCraig09 (talk) 22:35, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

  Surely you're aware that the word "strong" (and the word "weak") is often used in the bolded part of a !vote to indicate strength of opinion. I suggest you ping the editors who haven't made their positions clear and ask them to do so. Sorry, I'm not inclined to restore that departure from the method that has worked just fine at this article for years. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:40, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

  @MrX: @SPECIFICO: Just a note to ask you to add a bolded Support or Oppose etc. label to the beginning of your post, to make it easier to gauge consensus. —RCraig09 (talk) 23:28, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support. I can't believe that we would even consider nonsense like remote-diagnosis from psychiatrists or self-serving physicians' tall tales and then reject a factual diagram that quickly conveys well-documented behavioral information. SPECIFICO talk 23:53, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Seems more appropriate for the veracity article not here. PackMecEng (talk) 00:02, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

  Why not both? 🌮- MrX 🖋 01:23, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

  Nah, seems redundant.🌯 PackMecEng (talk) 03:24, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

  Tacos are never redundant with burritos. ¡Yo quiero! - MrX 🖋 12:29, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

  Fair enough, I can find no flaw in that logic! PackMecEng (talk) 18:38, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose: I see no reason to include them.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:38, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support Partly per SPECIFICO, also, these are clear, easy to understand graphical representations of things that have been extensively covered by RS. No reason not to include them. Mgasparin (talk) 01:42, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• Comment. Regardless of the consensus that emerges, I will note that this is almost certainly, by definition, summary level. Regardless of the content, it’s exactly the sort of graphic most articles ‘dream’ of. It can be created here due to the close press scrutiny of Trump, obviously. Visual aides are encouraged, and something like this is not only encyclopedic, it’s informative and easily verified.

  Secondly, I also likewise agree that a few (or likely several) of the images already in the article could be removed. A few a certainly fit into the photographic equivalent of WP:CRUFT, and there are clearly more relevant and encyclopedic images out there that we could replace them with. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 02:14, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

@Symmachus Auxiliarus: Just a note to suggest you add a bolded Support or Oppose etc. label to the beginning of your post, to make it easier to gauge consensus. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:17, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• Strong support. A picture is worth a thousand words, so this serves a very good purpose. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:18, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support. We can't get into fine detail, but a graph is a summary, almost by definition. The lies and deceptions distinguish this presidency from any other - not in that they occur, because there was never yet a completely honest politician - but because of the scale and magnificence, easily grasped by looking at the visual representation of data. We are here to inform, not to fight political battles. --Pete (talk) 06:01, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support - I was about to !vote weak support as the article is long. But, Trump’s flexibility with facts is a defining part of his lifelong career. As for clutter, this is certainly more valuable than having 23 images of the subject. O3000 (talk) 16:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

  @Objective3000: FTR, no Oppose argument has cited clutter. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:04, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

  Clutter is a concern of mine when an article is lengthy and why I first considered weak support. O3000 (talk) 17:25, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose charts - it’s details, and gives UNDUE emphasis to a POV talking point. There hasn’t been an enduring impact to Trump’s life from a chart anyway, nor has a chart been a big feature of his life, so it doesn’t belong in BLP. It’s mentioned to be at Veracity article — no need to xerox it here. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:20, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

  ??? You @Markbassett seem to be saying that the standard for inclusion of a chart is whether the chart impacted Trump's life? That would prohibit charts in biographies of anyone who died before the chart was created! —RCraig09 (talk) 06:04, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• User:RCraig09 - I'm saying three things - First, UNDUE emphasis to the POV talking point, when there's just minimal coverage of a counting and in particular not of these week-by-week variations. Second - not for this BLP article, as it's had no enduring impact to him. (The Washington Post in particular seems irritated by that, and the Star ... well they skipped several weeks and then quit doing this at all back inn June.) Nor is it a personal decision or event that directed his life. Just not something for BLP. Third - if it's already covered in the details article, there's no need to also have it here. It's supposed to go the other way around. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:51, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• Cheers @Markbassett. Fact-checking is not a wp:pov violation, and the highly notable nature of Trump's veracity issue ensures it doesn't violate wp:undue. Second, it's not about how a chart affects Trump (!); it's about whether it succinctly present facts about Trump. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:28, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• User:RCraig09 Nope, ‘highly notable’ is disproven by this doesn’t have WEIGHT. A “highly notable” item is shown by facts in WEIGHT of actually *being* highly noted. It would get a pass on that for his BLP if it actually was significant in his life. But there is no BLP significance. There simply is not frequent mentions of numeric totals nor any impact resulting from them - and this OR of the week by week variation comparison is pretty much just an odd display of no meaning or impact. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:01, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Hello again, User:Markbassett! Lack of veracity is an integral part of Trump's life: a Google search for "Trump lies" yields 693,000,000 results (2019-11-12) and the oft-cited WashPost fact-checking specifically states that Trump made 13,435 false or misleading claims since inauguration. Are you saying that Trump's ignoring the fact-checkers implies that fact-checking results are not a notable element of his life? That's backwards. . . . And definitely: newspaper fact-checking isn't my WP:OR. . . . P.S. WashPost and TorontoStar show monthly and weekly totals, respectively, and are consistent; also, TorontoStar stopped in June 2019 because the fact-checker resigned and not because of "lack of interest"! —RCraig09 (talk) 05:30, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• User:RCraig09 The article already covers that. Now as to my inputs for *this* proposal being added... Read the already-stated points in DISCUSSION section. The material in the proposed content is UNDUE, relevant hits down in the thousands not hundreds of millions. Try googling for the content proposed instead of vague topical area, looking at coverage of the Toronto Star defunct count, and for complex detailing of ‘this weeks count’ format which is the proposed display. If the proposal is to show Trump ignores fact-checkers (a) that’s unclear from a varying ‘this weeks count’ bar versus there already exists a better presentation in article text (and a whole details article) for the topic, and (b) the proposal as given has not met the WP:ONUS to show WP:V and WP:WEIGHT. Look, it’s loosely interesting that some WP editor crafted a mashup showing the two counters did not agree in details, but that just doesn’t have national press and has not had BLP effects on Trump to make it suitable for a BLP article. Not every possible presentation of everything possible belongs in the BLP article. And reiterating article content as a caption to a diagram that doesn’t show the captioned text... ? Does not relate to my inputs, put it down in general Discussion area. Markbassett (talk) 11:21, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Whoa. The "proposed content" (graph) shows the general topic (veracity), not merely weekly "complex detailing"; therefore the 693,000,000 Google hits figure is probative of wp:weight. . . . Googling —— "13,435" Trump (lies or false or misleading) —— (2019-11-12) shows 12,200 hits for this one WashPost finding alone. . . . Journalist fact-checking epitomizes WP:V! . . . The weekly chart is consistent with the monthly chart. . . Again, your reference that the charts have "not had BLP effects on Trump" has the analysis backward; content is supposed to describe Trump, and it does. . . . Good day, sir. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:26, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• And for me... The diagram shows a complex detail of dozens of bars varying in height, with Toronto Star counts different from Washington Post. The google of “13,435” being only 12,200 out of over 1,300,000,000 Trump items would show UNDUE - except that’s not actually *in* the diagram. The count of either paper just wasn’t widely present week to week, let alone a comparing counts of these two across time that this diagram involves. Markbassett (talk) 01:35, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• Strong support. Good job to whoever created the chart. Wikipedia needs more graphs and figures to communicate info clearly and simply, not less. I suggest this chart also gets added to the Presidency of Donald Trump article, where its addition would allow us to trim some text which explains what goes on in the chart. Trump's lying is a defining feature of his character and of his presidency, so it clearly meets DUE. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:38, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - Undue, POV, and weight concerns as described by others above. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 15:28, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

@May His Shadow Fall Upon You: How can two fact-checkers' study of Trump's extremely notable^{(ergo not violating wp:undue or wp:weight)} veracity be a wp:pov violation? Your claim that fact-checking is POV, is the POV violation, true? —RCraig09 (talk) 17:20, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

@RCraig09 - The problem I have with this chart (as well as anything along these lines) is that the term "false and misleading" is not particularly clear. By its very nature, the chart cannot explain that. Does it include deliberate falsehoods? Does it include mistakes? You could go on and on. Because this is a BLP, we should be concerned about those kinds of issues. Discussion about alleged falsehoods should occur solely in prose. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 22:04, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Actually, @MHSFUY, the language "false and misleading" is clear: as one would expect of fact checkers, the charted data makes no judgment about Trump's deliberateness, as explained further in the sources. That explanation could be easily added to the image's caption here, if needed. —RCraig09 (talk) 07:42, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support Graphs are the very best way to portray information. You can't attend a conference without being exposed to a graph or chart. Oldperson (talk) 02:13, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  @Oldperson: I agree, but nobody is saying graphs aren't a good way to portray information. My objection is that in this summary style article, we don't actually need this information. We only need the summary that says Trump tells an unprecedented number of lies. Let Veracity of statements by Donald Trump be the place where we go into the specifics of the frequency and trend of his lies. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:16, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  By your interpretation of wp:ss, @Scjessey:, would this article have one single sentence describing Trump's false statements: "Trump has made an unprecedented number of false or misleading claims" ? Same question to User:Mandruss. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:24, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  My preference would be that we would keep the first paragraph of Donald Trump#False statements (although I'm not a fan of the way the third sentence is currently worded) and eliminate the second. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:48, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  No, one sentence would not be enough WP:WEIGHT for the (quantity × quality) of RS coverage. I would differ with Scjessey on this point, as I don't think four sentences would be enough weight, either. The status quo is fine with me for now. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:11, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose The charts would give undue weight to a POV talking point. In many cases the allegedly false statements are based on fact-check sites that are themselves biased, and can take a slight error and blow it up into a supposed bald-faced lie. There is already enough language in the article stating that Trump repeatedly makes false statements. We don't need the POV further amplified with charts and graphs. Besides, if this is how the Trump article is treated, why not do the same for every prominent politician? We could make a whole chart up showing statements like "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor", "57 states", etc. But of course that would be equally ridiculous. GlassBones (talk) 13:35, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

  It sounds like you're simply, personally accusing fact-checkers at The Washington Post and Toronto Star of being biased—which would undercut WP's reliance on WP:RSs. Also, adding the charts would allow deletion of some of the second paragraph of the "False statements" section of the article (suggested here by Scjessey), so adding the charts wouldn't be just "amplifying" existing textual content. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:58, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

  Just because Scjessey suggested that, you can't assume that his suggestion would be followed – but that's what you did.

  @GlassBones - If a large fraction of the Post's 13,435 fact-checking items could be shown to be exaggerations or worse, there is little doubt that Trump supporters would have ponied up the cash for a website to do just that. Since that website does not exist, we can assume that the Post's fact-checking is solid for the most part, and solid fact-checking is not simply "POV talking point". ―Mandruss ☎ 18:32, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

  @GlassBones: - your whataboutism doesn't fly, especially when Trump is a whole different animal. He lies as a policy. academic access needed. starship.paint (talk) 15:42, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support per e.g. SPECIFICO and Mgasparin. I have read through the Oppose votes, and the most prevalent argument there - that the graphs would represent too much "detail" - stand in contrast to the fact (by now widely accepted based on research about communication) that infographicss are often able to convey basic information to readers more quickly and easily than text. Also, there appear to be no serious concerns about the validity of the underlying data itself. Regards, HaeB (talk) 10:50, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

  @HaeB: My opposition argument is not that the the graphs are too much detail, but that they are too much detail for this top-level biography. The article Veracity of statements by Donald Trump already contains the graphs prominently in its lead, and that article is readily accessible from this article via the {{Main}} hatnote link at the top of the "False statements" section – the very section where the graphs are proposed. Unlike some editors, I don't claim my position is self-evident, but I just wanted to be sure you understood it. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:11, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - I disagree with the POV claims. One should read the sources in the article, here - that Trump's falsehoods are HUGE. Believe me, many people say that. starship.paint (talk) 15:42, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support monthly graph only – A graph is indeed more communicative than many words, but two graphs are overkill, especially as they convey essentially the same message. — JFG ^talk 19:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

  @JFG: I had purposely graphed a second fact-checker's findings ("false claims"), as confirmation of the credibility of the first fact-checker's findings ("false or misleading claims". To me, the juxtaposed graphs project credibility. —RCraig09 (talk) 22:17, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - unencyclopedic, useless trivia. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:02, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion summary (veracity graphs)

• The following list condenses eleven (11+) desktop-screenfuls of discussion, to help gauge consensus and reasoning.*::
• Though I consider the following to be "my" list, you are welcome to add or correct information to your own entry—provided you keep it extremely brief: about eight words per argument; I may edit. Longer arguments should be added in text outside this summary list. Use " <br> - " to separate lines within your box. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:08, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• Thumbnail image is above. Link to image page: File:2017- Donald Trump - graph - false or misleading claims.png —RCraig09 (talk) 16:08, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Editor	Support or Strong Support	Oppose
MrX	-"excellent format for conveying info" -"possibly most compact way of conveying" -"consider people who seek visual information" (other images, electoral map) -Charts are about Trump's "core personality style" -"one of the most reported and enduring aspects of his life" -quantify and organize to "help our readers better understand"
Mandruss		-"Graphs are detail data" -Graphs not "summary level" (Consensus#37) -Already covered in prose -Already too much presidency content in this article -Graphs readily accessible in lead of Veracity -Generally bad policy to assume {{Main}} hatnote links will not be followed by readers interested in details
Scjessey		-"Shunt" "fine detail" to Veracity article, per WP:SS -Thumbnails are "tiny" -"specifics and trendlines... are of secondary importance" -"text is far more accessible than the graphs" (blind people)
SPECIFICO	-"factual diagram... quickly conveys... summary information" -Many web browser searchers (Users) "come for quick overview... not highly likely to pursue links to detail articles" -"the graphic delivers real value to a lot of our users"
PackMecEng		-"seems more appropriate for the Veracity article not here"
Jack Upland		-"I see no reason to include them"
Mgasparin	-"clear, easy to understand"... "covered by RS"
Symmachus Auxiliarus	-(no explicit "Support" but content is supportive) -"almost certainly... summary level... exactly sort of graphic most articles dream of"
BullRangifer	-"picture is worth a thousand words... serves very good purpose" -"RS and fact-checkers": WP depends on RSs
Pete	-"graph is summary, almost by definition" -"easily grasped by looking at the visual representation of data" -graphs "summarise information and present it in an easily-grasped form." -"defining characteristic of the man"
O3000	-"...defining part of his lifelong career"
Markbassett		- UNDUE emphasis - relatively nothing in coverage of counts week-by-week ... one discontinued for lack of interest. - Not BLP material, this count or chart has shown no enduring impact to his life. - In details article, no need to elevate / duplicate. - UNCLEAR - juxtaposing complex bar charts of weekly counts that don’t agree has unclear meaning. (Seems clearer and shorter to just write a narrative sentence.)
Snooganssnoogans	-"graphs to communicate info clearly and simply" -"defining feature of (Trump's) character and of his presidency... clearly meets DUE"
May His Shadow Fall Upon You		-"Undue, POV, ... weight concerns" per others above -In BLP: "discussion about falsehoods should occur solely in prose" -"term 'false and misleading' is not particularly clear"
Oldperson	-"Graphs are the very best way to portray information."
GlassBones		-"undue weight to a POV talking point"
HaeB	-Re detail: "infographics...often able to convey...more quickly and easily than text" -"no serious concerns about the validity of the underlying data"
JFG	-"graph is indeed more communicative than many words" -Monthly graph only: two graphs are "overkill"
Atsme		-"unencyclopedic, useless trivia"
___
RCraig09 (disclosure: is chart uploader)	-Chart, esp thumbnail, not unduly "detailed" under WP:SS    ↳ Text has long recited(implied consensus) more !"detail" -Falsehoods are Trump's hallmark: WP:DUE -Fact-checking is not NPOV breach or "negative trivia" -Agree that "Picture = 1000 words"    ↳ Charts=visuals convey substantive content instantly    ↳ No, 2"x3" thumbnail isn't "tiny": can see extent, trend    ↳ Chart language ("false or misleading claims") is clear

Why is this table necessary? This entire discussion can best be described by the headline: "In a repetition of almost every discussion, WP:SS is being ignored while politically polarized editors face off." -- Scjessey (talk) 20:44, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

First, as already noted, this List condenses eleven (11) desktop-screenfuls of discussion. More important, as the list itself proves, at least five Support editors have mentioned level of "detail" or "summary" or "compact(ness)", so your characterization that WP:SS is "ignored" is simply factually incorrect; and only two editors (both Oppose editors) initiated political issues such as POV. WP:SS states, for example: "Some readers need a lot of details on one or more aspects of the topic (links to full-sized separate subarticles)"; here, clearly, an image with two simple column graphs does not provide "a lot of details", especially at thumbnail size. Accordingly, most editors simply disagree with your personal opinion of WP:SS's application to this situation; they are not ignoring it. —RCraig09 (talk) 21:30, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm just not clear what your intent is here. If you're thinking one side will concede because the arguments are concisely summarized for closer scrutiny, I'm afraid you're wrong. If you're thinking one side can impose their will because the superior strength of their arguments has been "shown", I think you're asking for trouble. But this process could bear improvement and I try to be open to ideas for how to improve it. Show us how this table is worth the additional effort. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:28, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I think the table will be helpful to a closer, but they will still have to read the detailed comments. This discussions does need to be formally closed by an uninvolved editor. Perhaps in a few days, if there are no further !votes.- MrX 🖋 16:02, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

@Mandruss: The intent is to distill essential arguments that are dispersed across eleven (11) desktop-screenfuls, to make reasoned consensus easier to gauge:

Scjessey summarizes his argument (diff) based on his "solid understanding" of WP:SS "from working on many summary style articles"; to your credit, at least you (@Mandruss) have honestly admitted (diff) that the summary-vs.-detail issue is one of where to draw the line. WP:SS is definitely applicable, but as I mentioned two paragraphs above (21:30, 10 Nov), five Support editors specifically contradict your and Scjessey's conclusion about summary-vs.-detail. Meanwhile, Opposers PackMecEng and Jack Upland offer non-policy-based arguments only brief opinions without specific policy citations, while Opposers Markbassett and MayHisShadowFallUponYou assert obviously-misplaced POV arguments against fact-finders or obviously-incorrect assertions re the wp:weight of Veracity itself.

The weight of reasoned consensus over ~six days and >7500 words outside this Discussion summary is clear. Absent new substantive arguments, it's time to re-introduce the charts into this article. Or do you think we need an outside admin to formally decide? —RCraig09 (talk) 16:24, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

In an ideal world we would have an uninvolved closer for every discussion of any significance. Since that isn't practical, we often just count !votes as a matter of expedience, but rarely when the margin is this small and the issue so strongly contested. So, unless you're prepared to omit the content as a "no consensus" situation – or the margin increases considerably – we'll need an uninvolved close – as MrX said above. It doesn't have to be an admin, just an experienced and competent editor, as per the information near the top of WP:ANRFC. And there would probably be a long wait due to the backlog; the last one was over five weeks from request to closure. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:43, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

@RCraig09: I think dismissing the comments of several editors as "non policy-based arguments" is pretty shabby and incorrect. I may not personally believe in their rationale, but their arguments do appear to be based on their own interpretations of actual policy, just as my argument is based on my interpretation of WP:SS. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:00, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

A fair point. I've changed my description above. —RCraig09 (talk) 18:17, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

To be clear, I like these graphs and I certainly think they have value in the veracity article. I'm just opposed to putting them in this article because it would lead to an inconsistent application of WP:SS, and perhaps even open the door for bringing back other detailed material we've successfully excised in a quest to limit the article's footprint. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:00, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Consistency? The second paragraph of that section of the article has long contained outdated detail and other agonizingly microscopic detail. —RCraig09 (talk) 18:17, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

That is a different conversation worth having (and indeed I mention this at the beginning of #False statements below), but the focus of this discussion is about the graphs. We cannot allow whataboutism to be the deciding factor. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:39, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Let somebody else assess the consensus and decide. As someone who has closed a few long and complicated RfCs like this, I can say that charts like the above can be helpful, but not when they are made by a person heavily involved in the RfC. If I were closing this I would likely ignore the above chart completely and just make my own in Excel if I thought it was necessary to get a clearer view of the consensus. ~Awilley (talk) 17:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Someone: please begin the process for formally requesting an external admin/reviewer to decide. —RCraig09 (talk) 18:17, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

The discussion was opened a mere six days ago, although it feels like three weeks. MrX said Perhaps in a few days, if there are no further !votes. and I'm fine with that. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:22, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

False statements

Just to expand on the discussion about the veracity graphs, I think that entire second paragraph is also too much detail for a summary style article. The first paragraph describes Trump's mendacity as unprecedented and then we have an entire paragraph and (potentially) two graphs that try to quantify what sources mean by that. Surely that is more appropriate for Veracity of statements by Donald Trump? Do we really need to try to explain it here? -- Scjessey (talk) 15:04, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I think there's an issue that's been overlooked here. We editors are experienced users of WP and undoubtedly more interested than the median WP user in further detail we find clicking links on any WP page we view. But this page comes up near the top of the screen on web browser searches and many users come here for a quick overview or curiosity about what's significant. These users are not highly likely to pursue all the links to detail articles. They also may not process bare written information as quickly as they process information that's also highlighted by a graphic. There may be data as to the click-through behavior of our users, but I have no idea whether it's accessible to us. At any rate, does anyone doubt that it would confirm the behavior I've described? If I am correct, the graphic delivers real value to a lot of our users and should be included here in Trump's bio. SPECIFICO talk 15:22, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

For me, the key information about this section is that Trump is a liar on an unprecedented level. The specifics and trendlines of those lies are of secondary importance, and I don't think there's "real value" to the casual reader at all. But I respect your difference of opinion. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:29, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

That issue is not being overlooked, it's being strongly disputed. For my related comments, see the preceding subsection. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:38, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't see any discussion or dispute of this surmise about actual user behavior. Diff, please? SPECIFICO talk 15:41, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

My comments have been about the inherent illogic of that argument.[2] As for actual user behavior:

• If a user can't be bothered to click through to an article with more detail, they are demonstrating that their interest level is fairly superficial. That user is not going to pay much attention to the graphs anyway.
• Even if your theory were proven, it would be a relatively short-term consideration, as older generations are replaced by new generations of more web-savvy users who are far less averse to clicks.

And so on. I question the benefit of this line of discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:57, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I am concerned with the actual behavior and preferences of our current users. Your views appear to be opinions about what WP users should be doing or what some other group of users might be doing in the future. If your wishes come true, we can change the article. Meanwhile, I think this discussion addresses a core issue. It makes sense to provide for the needs and expectations of both dedicated link-clickers and casual top-level readers. Thanks for the elaboration. SPECIFICO talk 16:08, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Two observations dovetail nicely here: (1) these thumbnail charts show even lazy readers instantly (as only a graphic can do, and at a summary level) the level and intensification of falsehoods that will characterize Trump in perpetuity^{"a defining part of his lifelong career" —per Objective3000, above} (meeting Consensus #37), and (2) readers^{"web-savvy" or not} easily pursue details by clicking on the image or of course going to the Veracity sub-article. This combination of observations makes these charts ideal for a high-level article as well as the sub-article. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:35, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

To be clear, nobody is doubting the elegance of these graphs in what they are trying to achieve. The question is whether or not these graphs constitute extra detail that is best left to the main article on Trump's mendacity. I firmly believe they do not belong in this article, because all they do is reinforce what has already been said, and that is something the other article should be doing, not the summary. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:32, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

We might as well get rid of all graphical presentations of data, and point our readers towards source documents such as CSV data, so that they can see the details in context. I mean, if we're following that particular argument all the way. I think people come to Wikipedia to get information presented in an accessible fashion. We're not just a collection of links, after all. --Pete (talk) 21:26, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Right. Why is this so sensitive? Couldn't we use the same "oppose" arguments to remove the Hollywood Star, the Inauguration photo, and other illustrations. And they're also too small to parse unless we click on the thumbnails. SPECIFICO talk 21:56, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Again, my opposition to the inclusion of these graphs has nothing whatsoever to do with the inclusion of any other thing, including images. My argument for exclusion is based solely on the solid understanding of I have on WP:SS that I have gleaned from working on many summary style articles over the years. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:01, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I really hate whataboutism, which pretends that we could be consistent on these things across the board – and often presents false equivalences. I'm afraid this business is far too messy, chaotic, and complex for that. Please limit discussion about the graphs to the graphs. You're free to propose removal of the Hollywood Star, the Inauguration photo, and other illustrations separately (or BOLDly remove them, as I don't think any of them have an explicit consensus). ―Mandruss ☎ 07:13, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

My point isn't about photographs. It's about presenting information to our readers in the best possible fashion. A visual summary of data sourced elsewhere. Graphs of Trump's lies (or other 2-variable data ) are commonplace in the media for precisely these reasons. --Pete (talk) 08:36, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I was addressing SPECIFICO, as indicated by my indentation level. As for your comment – I think people come to Wikipedia to get information presented in an accessible fashion. – we are in full agreement. But I think the Veracity article is quite accessible, and you apparently don't. I don't think further debate is going to get us any closer to agreement on that point. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:43, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

When you Google search for "donald trump falsehoods", what's the first Wikipedia article you see? Answer: Not Donald Trump, but – wait for it – Veracity of statements by Donald Trump. Same for "donald trump lies". ―Mandruss ☎ 09:03, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I think the intention of our encyclopaedia here is to present information relevant to Don Trump in an accessible fashion for the benefit of our readers. Is there some reason why information should be presented once only? It's not as if we are short on space, surely? As for mendacity, other editors have made the point that it is a defining characteristic of this person. It's not as if we don't cover information in this article that is repeated in other more detailed articles. The graph is a summary display, not a detailed listing. --Pete (talk) 09:18, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

You are not saying anything that hasn't already been said – and countered – multiple times in this discussion. Circular argument is a pointless waste of space and time. I and others think our arguments are more convincing, which is why they are our arguments. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Countered in that an opposing opinion has been expressed, maybe. I reject your opinion, which seems to be that it's okay to give our readers a graphical display of one of Trump's defining characteristics, just not in the Trump article. --Pete (talk) 17:10, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

And I (we) reject yours. We are drawing a line in different places, agreeing on the relevant factors but assigning them different weights. It happens a lot in this business. The mistake is in believing that there is one correct answer, a very common mistake. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:31, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry? I haven't offered an opinion on this matter. Which of my factual statements do you find problematic? Or is it my view on your opinion that you disagree with? Could you be more specific, please? --Pete (talk) 06:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

My misunderstanding. After a several re-reads, some yoga meditation, and an aborted reply, you're "rejecting my opinion" as to only one narrow point, that it's okay to give our readers a graphical display of one of Trump's defining characteristics, just not in the Trump article. Ok, rejection received and rejected. The fact that it's related to one of Trump's defining characteristics does not automatically qualify it for inclusion in my view. You could make the same argument for all kinds of additional content about the falsehoods thing, but that content wouldn't automatically qualify for this article, either. I suspect you would agree with that, which means you are prepared to draw a line on that. As I said, we are drawing that line in different places, and there is no "correct" place for that line.

In anticipation of your rebuttal, the fact that it's graphical does not automatically qualify it for inclusion in my view, either, although I clearly hear your opinion that it should. That's a matter of editorial judgment, and editors will disagree on editorial judgment. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:25, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• To “nobody is doubting the elegance of these charts”, I think that’s incorrect - a month by month iteration is complicated, not elegant; and of two counts that don’t agree and isn’t obvious as to what it’s saying ... meh. The things said above on how this would “characterize Trump in perpetuity” seem more aspirational goal OR than something actual being summarized or of an actual impact in his life. I don’t know if he’s even much aware of these two counters, let alone a monthly chart, but this isn’t showing something that’s affected him much. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:38, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm pretty that sure most readers with a sixth grade education would not struggle to understand the two dimensions of these charts. This is not an article about what affects Trump, so your comment in that regard is disqualifying in my opinion. Trump's frequent falsehoods are one of the most reported and enduring aspects of his life. Anything we can do to quantify and organize the extent of his lying will help our readers better understand the subject.- MrX 🖋 11:39, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I have a sixth grade education, and I understood the charts. SPECIFICO talk 12:09, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Markbassett, Trump's unprecedented mendacity affects everyone else, and RS and fact-checkers have documented this unprecedented phenomenon. That some editors don't think he's the biggest liar ever is irrelevant here, and their personal POV should not cause them to ignore Wikipedia's dependence on what RS say. Their allegiance should be to RS, not to protecting and white-washing Trump. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:03, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

User:BullRangifer I'll cover the three points I raised again with detail, as the items of my input. If you want to talk about your view of the topic area in general or that opinions vary is fine, verging out of AGF not so much. But in doing this you're just not speaking to the objections for this specific edit. If you can dispute these points of evidence and policy, then do so. If you can't, then accept that maybe not every edit belongs.

• UNDUE - the bio of Trump should not have Toronto Star above the proportion of coverage that has ... and while the press has snarked at a few things, they do not typically go to the rest nor overall total or discussing these summary opinions in particular. By simple Google counts I see Trump has an absurd 1,910,000,000 hits -- but Trump and "Toronto Star" Google I get 793,000. So the Star's coverage of him or any mention of the two is 4 ten-thousandths of the total. If you make it about the fact-count in particular Trump and "Daniel Dale" it is 198,000 hits -- one ten-thousandth. Basically ALL coverage around his counting in total is down in the microscopic level of coverage, and almost all of that is about hitting a new level or that counting exists. This week-by-week coverage that was just recently done ... obviously will be down at the hundred-thousandths or -millionths level. It does not deserve a BLP mention, let alone the highlighted prominence of imagery.
• No Enduring Impact This article is Trump's BLP, and in terms of what effect or importance these weekly displays have had to his life, or even the existence of counts -- there seems not even awareness that they exist, and if it has made no difference then it just doesn't matter.. This isn't a personal characteristic or event in his life, it's just pushing a POV talking point that has not had any importance and as shown just is not significantly covered.
• Unclear OK, two similar displays of per-period total next to each other ... So, is this trying to show that Washington and Toronto disagree about 'false' ? (Well they do, but I don't think this is a way to show that.) Is this trying to show that 'False and misleading' is mostly just 'misleading' by how they differ ? Is this to show that counts strongly disagree week-by-week ? It's just not clear what either of them is showing nor what the comparison is supposed to show. and if it isn't at all clear without a caption - then a diagram isn't helping. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:37, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

In my army days, if the officers wanted explanations as to why we troops weren't buzzing around doing trooply things, we'd explain at great length in a certain mode of dialect. "BBB" we called it: "Bullshit Baffles Brains". Mark, none of the above makes any sense or has any relation to policy here. --Pete (talk) 23:16, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Markbassett, Pete is right. I'm not sure how to characterize your arguments comments, but BBB is a good description. They seem like a lot of words to get around documenting what RS say.

The "impact on his life" argument is especially specious (for some odd reason it only gets trotted out for dealing with negative information about him) because Trump is teflon, so nothing sticks to him, and therefore, by your reasoning, we should just ignore what RS say and not mention anything which doesn't have some "impact" on him

That is totally unlike how we deal with the same types of content for everyone else, because they are normal and the reality which RS document about them actually has an impact on their lives. No, forget the subjective "personal impact" argument. We should treat him like we treat every effing human being described by RS. "Trump Exemption Policy"(*) is not a real Wikipedia policy. Your three "comments" are not worthy of retort. They pretty much ignore many of our policies. Trump's "teflonness" does not justify protecting and whitewashing him. Look to RS for guidance, not to Trump. His guidance can be safely ignored.

(*) FYI, the "Trump Exemption Policy" describes how content regarding Trump is held to a much higher bar by his supporters here than for any other notable person. This does not happen to other people. Such kid glove treatment (only for him) is not based on policy, especially WP:PUBLICFIGURE, which lowers the bar for public persons, and Trump is THE most public person. The bar for inclusion of any type of content and/or unproven allegation (and this isn't an unproven allegation) is very low for public figures. We aren't even in this territory.

No special exemptions for Trump. Okay? Let's just apply our policies to him in exactly the way we do for every other public person. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:58, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

User:BullRangifer reply for ping (what another one ?) Yes, WEIGHT for a week by week chart does not exist, no need to get huffy with me over the fact. And 'no enduring impact' has been discussed before in whether items are just story-du-jour or don't belong in a BLP before. No point in getting angry over these charts not having that either. The rest of your post seems not asking about my 3 input points or about the charts topic, but I will suggest that if normal BLPs don't have questions of negative trivia being shoved at them as often, ehhh, that also seems just a fact. No special exceptions for Trump criticisms either, Okay ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

To the extent that the charts are asserted to "duplicate" content that's already in the text, consider: would it be wiser to insert the charts and remove (some of) the text? Humans absorb visual representations nearly instantaneously, whereas abstract textual/language representations (coming along much later in evolution) are much harder to process—the "picture is worth a thousand words" phenomenon mentioned above. . . . . . . . Also consider: the existing text goes into a fair amount of non-summary detail that Opposers object to in the charts! And non-summary "details" can only be seen in the charts if they click on them—presumably because they want immediate access to more detail. . . . . P.S. The thumbnail chart—2x3 inches on my desktop computer—is not "tiny" except on a cellphone. —RCraig09 (talk) 07:25, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Even if the graphs are included, I don't see much duplication unless we speak in very general terms. The closest we come to duplication is the midterm election spike, and even there the prose gives information not readily apparent in the graphs: For the seven weeks leading up to the midterm elections, it rose to an average of thirty per day from 4.9 during his first hundred days in office. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:50, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

The text is far more accessible than the graphs. Consider what a visually impaired person is supposed to do with a graph, for example. A picture is worth zero words to a blind person. I get why some editors want these graphs, I really do, but I just think those editors have a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:SS. By moving the "summary needle" to accommodate the graphs, it effectively moves it to let a whole lot of other shit back in that we have successfully excised. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:35, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Who says text is far more accessible than the graphs? I'm sure you have heard of Dyslexia, Hyperlexia, and ADHD. As long as we have the important information in words and graphics, everyone wins. (Besides, the graphs can be summarized in ALT tags.)- MrX 🖋 13:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

For those people with dyslexia et al, they can navigate to the main article. It's like everyone here has suddenly forgotten what "summary" means. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:56, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't think many people understood what was being proposed when they supported passage of #37. I'll wear that as the proposer. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:01, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Red herrings

Any normal article welcomes the addition of an auxiliary graph to present a visual indication of data. The comments about blind or dyslexic readers are valid, but it is pointless trying to craft pertinent guidelines here in a political article. Wikistyle on these matters may be found elsewhere as accepted over the many years we've been doing this job of presenting information. We should comply with style - of course - but may I suggest that any editor in this current discussion quote relevant guidelines at WP:ACCESSIBILITY rather than reaching into the air?

Wikipedia isn't short on space. Typically we present information in the body of an article, in summary form in the lede, and if the topic warrants it, in more detail in specialised articles. Obviously we can't jam the entire article into the WP:LEDE - that's not what it's for - but I suggest that if material in the body warrants its own specialised article, as this topic does here, then the topic is worthy of inclusion in the lede; it's not something that is seen as minor.

The nature of a graph is to summarise information and present it in an easily-grasped form. Graphs are commonplace in Wikipedia articles. Currently our lede text says "Trump has made many false or misleading statements…" and I suggest that this is something that could apply to any politician. Trump takes it far beyond that anodyne statement, and it is a defining characteristic of the man; a point made by many in discussion above, and not seriously challenged. Adding a graph to underline the significance is hardly controversial in itself.

The only point here should be whether it belongs in the lede according to MOS guidelines, or in the body. --Pete (talk) 14:53, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Why are we talking about the lead? ―Mandruss ☎ 15:26, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

@Skyring: By your rationale, we should eliminate all the daughter articles we created in support of WP:SS and shove the whole lot into this article. I don't disagree that the graphs are useful, but I regard them as finer detail best left to the appropriate daughter article. By the way, "The Rouge Clupeidae" will be my new band name. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Let me be the first to point out that you're mixing languages. That's Clupeidae rubicundus. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:40, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

But it doesn't sound anywhere near as good, and it least French evolved from vulgar Latin. I still chuckle whenever I think of WP:ROUGE. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:45, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Pete makes a good point about due weight as a determining factor for inclusion in the lead of an article:

"but I suggest that if material in the body warrants its own specialised article, as this topic does here, then the topic is worthy of inclusion in the lede; it's not something that is seen as minor."

When one reads a large mother article of significance, like this one, it will have many sections, a number of which are short summaries of SPINOFF sub-articles. One could get the mistaken impression (gained from visually comparing the size of sections) that many of those short summaries are of less due weight than the longer sections which do not link to a sub-article. That is often the exact opposite of reality. Those "longer sections which do not link to a sub-article" have so little due weight that they don't deserve a sub-article, and thus only short mention in the lead.

To properly gauge due weight, one should look at the sub-article, and then realize that it often has much more due weight than a section not leading to a sub-article. It was so weighty that we could not give it full coverage in the mother article. So keep that in mind when determining what and how much should be mentioned in the lead. Give those sub-articles their due weight in the lead of the mother article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:12, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Why are we talking about the lead? ―Mandruss ☎ 18:40, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

"By your rationale, we should eliminate all the daughter articles we created in support of WP:SS and shove the whole lot into this article." No, Scjessey, That's not the case. See, there's a reason I used the phrase red herrings above.

My point is that we should stick to policy, unless there is a compelling reason to WP:IAR. If you want to talk about blind people as a reason to not have a graph in this article, that has already been discussed at a higher level and the Manual of Style tells us what to do. --Pete (talk) 20:14, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I was trying to make a point about how cutting text in favor of the graphs would be foolish, but my rationale for excluding the graphs remains that they represent too much detail for a summary style article. Bear in mind that this is my view despite my personal distaste for the odious subject of the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:18, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not advocating cutting text at all, unless it's the sort of data-dense material that is best put into graphical form. I think with Don Trump, having a graphical representation of the volume of falsehoods over time presents information that is readily accessible without having to resort to "pre-digested" statements, or looking deeper into the source. It's available at a glance, because that is the way we tend to assimilate information. --Pete (talk) 20:56, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• WEIGHT? Think this said that backwards. WEIGHT is *against* the chart being present at all, there factually is not prominence to a series of weekly counts for Trump. A few noted instances and midterm election period, yes. Abstract counts for every week, no. A weekly numbers proportion of coverage or a chart of such has not shown much WEIGHT. On a related note...weekly number x and y and z also are not in the article so the chart just isn’t a summary of something here. Those are just the facts... Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:57, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Sources

"The third president to be impeached" in the lead

The discussion of impeachment was originally added to the fifth paragraph of the lead when we were only dealing with calls for impeachment. Now Trump has been impeached, the 3rd president in US history. It's 15 times more common to be president of the U.S. than to be one of the three presidents since 1789 who were impeached. Hence, this issue is now vastly more significant than when it was originally added to the fifth paragraph of the lead. It is clear that this now merits a more prominent mention in the lead, preferably in the first paragraph. For instance, his less notable activity as a television personality is mentioned in the first paragraph. His impeachment is, in addition to being much rarer than being president, an essential feature of his presidency, and something his entire presidency has revolved around, with all the investigations and talk of impeachment that started the moment he took office, something he himself has engaged with constantly. We could change the first paragraph to: 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. In 2019 he became the third president to be impeached.. --Tataral (talk) 05:57, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Nah, not yet. See how it goes with the senate. PackMecEng (talk) 06:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

They don't have a say in whether he gets impeached. He's now impeached, like only three others. --Tataral (talk) 06:12, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Yup and it is in the lead. I do not agree that it needs to be the third sentence in the lead just yet. PackMecEng (talk) 06:14, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Obviously belongs in the lead. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 06:23, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree it belongs in the lead.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:54, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Andrew Johnson's impeachment is mentioned in the fifth sentence of the lead. Bill Clinton's impeachment is also mentioned in the fifth sentence of the lead. Useful precedents to consider. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:01, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

You probably meant Andrew Johnson. And the Watergate scandal is mentioned in the first paragraph of Richard Nixon's article too, with most RS viewing the Watergate scandal as less serious than all the Trump–Russia/Ukraine scandals. --Tataral (talk) 08:24, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I have corrected "Jackson" to "Johnson". Sorry for the typo. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:38, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

The precedent is that Long afterwards it gets ‘fifth line and nothing else’ - Lead mentions the outcome and not the preceding steps. But I doubt people are ready to drop the lead para on Mueller and lead para on inquiry. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion

The opening should read: "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current president of the United States, and the third president to be impeached."

I believe this is an accurate description of his status as POTUS. Ollie Garkey (talk) 06:33, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I would support that wording as well. --Tataral (talk) 07:24, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

No, it doesn't belong in the first sentence. The opening line of Clinton's article doesn't say he was the second to be impeached.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:31, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

However, Andrew Johnson's article mentions his impeachment in the first paragraph. Trump's impeachment is more central to his legacy than Clinton's impeachment for a trivial issue which centered on him having extramarital relations (really, who cares?). Clinton was widely known for a range of other things, his whole presidency didn't revolve around Russia investigations, foreign interference and his impeachment (unlike Trump's impeachment for a much more serious issue, that has been a much more dominating feature of his presidency). Nobody accused Clinton of soliciting foreign interference of the main adversary of the U.S. in American democracy, of being a threat to democracy or abusing power. --Tataral (talk) 07:38, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Andrew Johnson's article mentions it in the first paragraph, not the first sentence. It's way too early to decide what Trump's legacy is and what has dominated his presidency (which looks set to continue for another four years). Clinton was impeached for "obstruction of justice". That is not trivial. However, he was acquitted. The issues of Whitewater, Monica Lewinsky etc did dominant his Presidency. People were accusing Clinton of everything, including mass murder.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:04, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

My proposal above was to mention it in the first paragraph, but not the first sentence. I'm fine with either alternative. It is not way too early to assess how the world views Donald Trump and his presidency. It has been extensively commented on for years, since 2016 (even the impeachment talk started in 2016). Clinton's presidency, as covered by international media, didn't revolve around impeachment and him being a grave threat to democracy; his impeachment was covered by international media as a curious event that resulted from a right-wing witch-hunt and over a trivial issue, late in his otherwise successful presidency. He was not accused of soliciting the interference of foreign countries against his own country. The Watergate scandal is mentioned in Richard Nixon's first paragraph too; many RS have commented on the fact that Trump's Russia and Ukraine scandals are far more serious than the Watergate scandal; it's telling that we have so many articles covering these related scandals that ultimately resulted in his impeachment, so it deserves a mention in the first paragraph (Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, Links between Trump associates and Russian officials, Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (January–June 2018), Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (July–December 2018), Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump, Impeachment of Donald Trump, Trump–Ukraine scandal etc.). --Tataral (talk) 08:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

No, you said you supported the wording above. You probably should be impeached yourself. It is not relevant what was not said about Clinton. Whether an impeachment is a witch-hunt or a crucifixion is not relevant here. Impeachment is a major event, but I don't see that Clinton is very different from Trump. I don't need a lecture from you about how the international media covered Clinton.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:38, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Untrue. I said I support that wording "as well" (as my own proposal above which included it in the third sentence). Both alternatives are fine with me. --Tataral (talk) 09:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I'll support one brief sentence at the end of the first para due to the historic nature. He is the third U.S. president in history to have been impeached. That leaves a lot unsaid, and that's fine and quite appropriate for the first para; more detail in the last para of the lead, where it is now. I would struggle to find a sensible place for new content anywhere else above the last para. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:34, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I had in mind too: a very short mention in the first paragraph that briefly summarises/introduces the topic (the end of the first paragraph is fine with me), and more detail on the investigations and inquiries that ultimately led to his impeachment at the end of the lead section. --Tataral (talk) 09:33, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

A consensus in something more structured than this would be required to modify #Current consensus item 17. But we can discuss a bit more before taking the articles of edit proposal to the full House for a !vote. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:40, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I would support a brief sentence in the first paragraph. I also think the impeachment should comprise the entire last paragraph of the lead (an edit I made yesterday, but was reverted.) The impeachment should not be lumped in with the Mueller investigation. - MrX 🖋 19:49, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

• Doesn’t belong in the first line, for now as the summary of the impeachment para is best. The alternative of Clinton precedent seems like it needs to *note* that precedent is ‘line 5 and nothing else’. No Mueller para and no inquiry para. Maybe further events and enough time has passed that we can focus on the endpoint and skip the steps, but my feeling is that we’re not there yet. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:31, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Missing info

An important piece of information is missing from the sentence in the lead about Trump's impeachment that makes it different from the two previous cases: the votes to impeach were entirely partisan/from one party, while the votes against were bipartisan (two Democrats voted against, with one abstaining/present). AppliedCharisma (talk) 19:01, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of this point was already in progress below when you posted this. Let's keep all of that in one place, please. I see you've already commented there. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

You forgot amash, and the only reason that happened is that disappointingly every single republican is corrupt. Who voted for what doesn't belong in the lead at all,anyway.  Nixinova   T   C   01:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

The better phrasing would be “On almost entirely partisan lines”. It would be misportrayal to call this bipartisan, the partisan nature is what should be mentioned more. The partisan nature has WEIGHT as the first and most common thing said about the vote. The few who didn’t vote with their party are mentioned, but as side points. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:43, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Almost every single vote is along partisan lines now, so the fact that the impeachment is the same is unremarkable. No mention of how the vote went is necessary or significant for this article. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Scjessey, It's very much remarkable considering past impeachments. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 14:18, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

@May His Shadow Fall Upon You: Let me give you some fuller context to explain my view, if you'll allow me to indulge myself with something that might sound a little FORUMy. Past impeachments have happened when bipartisanship was the norm and there was less vote whipping. "Crossing the aisle" wasn't just common, it was considered statesmanlike. But since 9/11 and the horrible Patriot Act, the nation has become increasingly polarized and that has been reflected in more and more partisanship in government. Each new administration has seen the intensity of partisanship increase, with Mitch McConnell's obstruction of Barack Obama being the most dramatic example. Now we have reached a point where Republican lawmakers are united in defending the indefensible. Acts by a POTUS that previously would've shocked lawmakers of any political persuasion are now defended as perfectly normal. In short, it has become completely normal for votes to fall along party lines, and the impeachment of Trump is just another in a long line of such votes. Such votes are remarkable when taken in the historical context of impeachments, but not at all remarkable when taken in the contemporary context of the way business is done in Congress today. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:54, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Scjessey, I can respect your opinion but this is exactly the kind of editorializing that we're supposed to avoid. We should not omit (or include) information because it does not represent an editor's POV. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 19:29, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

It's not editorializing if it's on a talk page. Reliable sources do not think the "partisan vote" for impeachment is remarkable, and I'm giving you my reasons why I agree with that. The decision about exclusion or inclusion should be based on reliable sources, and on consensus. I would never dream of trying to impose my personal view upon a Wikipedia article. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:16, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I vote for sticking to what reliable sources think, and skipping the part about why you agree with that. Your instinct about FORUM was spot on (you have good instincts) and you should have listened to that instinct in my opinion. (I'll resist the urge to go all meta about our very selective and inconsistent enforcement of NOTFORUM.) ―Mandruss ☎ 01:17, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

You're right. I'll shut up now. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:32, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

He was impeached. Whether a minority consisting of his own (far-right & white nationalist) party supported his impeachment doesn't matter. --Tataral (talk) 14:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Final vote tally in the open?

It seems that there should be some sort of note that the impeachment was the first attempt with no bipartisan support, with some democrats voting against impeachment, one voting "present," and one democrat defecting to the Republican Party. A summary, something to the effect of: "...Trump was impeached, with zero Republican votes, two Democrats voting against both articles, one Democrat voting "yes" for the first article, and another voting "present" for both articles." Architeuthidæ (talk) 15:56, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I believe that is too much detail for the Trump bio, and better suited for the main impeachment article. ValarianB (talk) 16:50, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

It might be a little wordy how I put it, that was just some brainstorming. But at least something should be said that it had no bipartisan support...zero votes from the opposition party is pretty significant. Architeuthidæ (talk) 17:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Worth noting, Architeuthidæ, is that long time Republican congressman Justin Amash resigned from the GOP a few months ago, and voted for both articles of impeachment. However, these details do not belong in Trump's biography, but in the impeachment article instead. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:36, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

That is worth noting in Justin Amash's biography, but Van Drew's defection occurred during the impeachment process, which appears to be out of disgust with his party's behavior, which I believe is a first. I don't know if we should mention the defection in Trump's biography, only the fact that the impeachment was a party-line vote with no bipartisan support. Architeuthidæ (talk) 18:05, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

The fact that it's along party lines has a lot more to do with the sad state of American politics than with Donald Trump. Therefore a mention in the lead is not warranted and "along party lines" already exists in the Impeachment section of this article. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:53, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

It is warranted for the lead, because it informs the reader of an important fact- that the impeachment was entirely derived from partisan politics. Not a single Republican voted in favor, even Republicans who declared themselves in opposition to the Trump presidency in the past. That's a very significant aspect of this event. AppliedCharisma (talk) 19:05, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I submit that there are a lot of important facts in this situation and we can't put all of them in the lead. As I said, this has little to do with Donald Trump. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:09, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Wouldn't you agree that the fact that an impeachment with reasoning such as "I'm concerned that if we don't impeach this president, he will get reelected" in the words of Al Green, also has more to do with the sad state of American politics than Donald Trump? We have to mention the impeachment obviously, so if we all agree that this impeachment was a purely political maneuver to damage Trump's re-election chances rather than about "obstruction of Congress," the fact that it was a purely partisan act should be mentioned hand in hand. I agree with AppliedCharisma, and the fact that even the Never Trumpers didn't go along with this is very significant. Architeuthidæ (talk) 19:11, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

if we all agree that this impeachment was a purely political maneuver - What on earth makes you believe that we all agree on that? Even if we did, that's blatant POV reasoning. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

The fact that you said that the impeachment has to do with the "sad state of American politics," and "little to do with Donald Trump" (and by extension, his actions, phone calls, etc.). POV meaning Point of View I assume? I don't think that's in dispute. Zero Republicans voted for the articles, three Democrats voted against at least one Article or "present," and one Democrat defected and joined up with the Republicans during the impeachment process. There's not a point of view. That's the final vote tally. Architeuthidæ (talk) 19:25, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I can't believe I have to explain this. It's POV to say that the party-line division proves it's a "purely political maneuver". The opposing POV argument, which has no more place in this discussion than yours, is that the party-line division proves that the Republicans care more about protecting their guy and making Democrats look bad than about political ethics and checks and balances. The non-POV view is that American politics and society have become hopelessly polarized, end. This line of discussion should now be dropped and probably collapsed. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Also, the opposition to the impeachment actions was bipartisan (two Democrats against) while the support was only from one political party. That's a salient fact about this impeachment, and that has been noted in multiple media sources. AppliedCharisma (talk) 19:22, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't dispute that it's a salient fact about this impeachment. I dispute that every salient fact about this impeachment belongs in this article's lead. We are not going to reach agreement on this point, so it's time to wait for other input. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:26, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

It's also noteworthy that this is the first impeachment in history where the House is refusing to send the Articles to the Senate. The lead states right now: "A Senate trial is pending." Well, not really. No more than the event of "aliens making contact with Earthlings" is pending. The Senate has no articles, so there is no trial or dismissal pending yet. Nancy Pelosi is still holding onto 'em and she has yet to indicate when or if the Senate will have a chance to take a look at Adam Schiff's work. Architeuthidæ (talk) 19:37, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, so let's explore that issue in this article's lead. No thanks. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:39, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

No I'm saying we should NOT explore this issue. There really isn't a Senate trial pending. "Pending" indicates that an event will take place. Nancy has given no indication that the Senate will get their hands on the Articles, and there seems to be a Republican consensus that a quick dismissal is more likely than a full trial. The lead is inaccurate and misleading. Architeuthidæ (talk) 19:49, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I oppose including vote counts, party defections, and reflections about the impeachment being non-bipartisan in this article. This information is not particularly relevant to Trump's life. Furthermore, the claim that the impeachment was driven by party politics is a false claim manufactured by hard core Trump devotees. - MrX 🖋 19:40, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Two D's voting "nay" and 1 voting 'present" does not make the effort "bipartisan", not by a long shot. ValarianB (talk) 19:44, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

No more nothing for this article. I think it's fine to remove "Senate trial pending". This is the biography @Architeuthidæ: it's not helpful to get into personal opinions on the article talk page. We need to consider the article topic, sourced references, and due weight. Opinions are likely to attract lots of distractions and side-colloquy among editors. SPECIFICO talk 19:46, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I think it's fine to remove "Senate trial pending". -- That would be opposed by editors who feel we need to accommodate the (many) readers who think impeachment means removal. It's another good illustration of the tangled mess we get into when we try to avoid all ambiguity in the lead of an article. We simply can't leave anything unsaid without, well, leaving something unsaid – and that's a simple fact of any type of summary-level writing that many Wikipedia editors seem unable to understand. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:56, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

We can leave some things left unsaid such as the record speed of the impeachment, Democrat to Republican conversions and other curiosities unique to this impeachment, but we shouldn't have blatant falsehoods in the lead like "A Senate trial is pending." A Senate trial isn't pending. The Senate doesn't even have any Articles of impeachment. Until Nancy hands the Articles over, we can't say whether a Senate trial or dismissal is or isn't pending. Architeuthidæ (talk) 20:03, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

You know very well that a Senate trial is coming. The technical definition of "pending" is far too deep in the weeds for the lead of this biography. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:05, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

No we don't. Media sources are saying that Rep Pelosi is holding the charges indefinitely. Anyway, simply add "All the votes for impeachment were from Democratic Party members plus one independent." This short sentence communicates absolutely crucial information to the reader as is shows that, unlike the other two impeachments in US history, there was NO bipartisan support for it. Even anti-Trump media sources are noting this in their reporting, that it was a strictly party-line vote. AppliedCharisma (talk) 20:09, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't think we should make assumptions about what Nancy is or isn't going to do with the articles. Until she indicates that she's going to give the Articles to the Senate, a Senate trial isn't pending. Also as I said before, a dismissal is more likely. Lindsey Graham, Mitch McConnell, and the Trump team have indicated they want to get this taken care of quickly and avoid a long drawn-out trial. If we want to be at least somewhat accurate, we should say "A Senate dismissal is pending." That's not really accurate either, but more accurate than saying a "trial" is pending when there's no reason to believe that a trial is pending. Architeuthidæ (talk) 20:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I hadn't read today's breaking news. So it would be sensible to change "A Senate trial is pending" to "He has yet to be tried in the Senate." and explain what that means in the Impeachment section. I still oppose anything about the party lines in the lead, for the reasons I've given above. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:16, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

"He has yet to..." That's a long long list for any WP article. The Pope has yet to take a bride. I think readers will be confident they can find it in the article when it happens. SPECIFICO talk 20:23, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

You assume that readers understand the American impeachment process, or that it's not the job of this article to clarify such things. As I said above, many editors are not prepared to assume that. That's why, for example, the lead of this article, which is not about the American presidential election process, includes a long footnote explaining how the Electoral College works and how a president can be elected with less than 50% of the popular vote. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:28, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Interesting point, @Mandruss:. I had assumed there was a link to an impeachment article that detailed the American impeachment process. There is no such article. Somebody should start it. Still not convinced we need to append pendency in the lead. SPECIFICO talk 21:50, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Impeachment in the United States. But the same principle applied to the Electoral College and we still felt a long footnote was needed. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:56, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Why do you presume it's going to happen, and just a matter of "when" Specifico? Because of precedent? If we can all agree on something, it's that pretty much everything about this impeachment is unprecedented. Until Nancy gives indication that she's going to hand over the Articles to the Senate, I think we should just refrain from mentioning the Senate at all. Maybe just a line saying "Currently, the Articles rest with Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who has yet to decide what to do with them." Architeuthidæ (talk) 20:32, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I see you're a new account. Please don't speculate or offer personal opinions on the article talk page. The talk page is to agree how to map sources into article text. You may read my "when" as "if" when/if you wish. SPECIFICO talk 21:40, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

It's going to be pretty tough to improve this article unless we offer our opinions on the content, here. Do you know a way to have a discussion without offering our thoughts on the topic? I see you removed the note about a senate trial pending, thanks. It's a good idea to leave that out until Nancy decides on her next move. Architeuthidæ (talk) 21:45, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Off topic. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:53, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

And stop referring to Speaker Pelosi by her first name. Surely you know that's inappropriate. SPECIFICO talk 21:50, 19 December 2019 (UTC) Hmmm. I didn't know that's inappropriate on an article talk page. A number of experienced editors at Talk:Hillary Clinton need to be informed about that, preferably with a pointer to the PAG about that. It's not at all uncommon to refer to her as "Hillary" there. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:09, 19 December 2019 (UTC) Was I addressing you Man? SPECIFICO talk 22:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC) Damn, that's two things in a row I didn't know. Don't reply unless you were addressed. I'll be watching for your compliance with that rule. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:09, 19 December 2019 (UTC) - MrX 🖋 23:20, 19 December 2019 (UTC) ―Mandruss ☎ 23:34, 19 December 2019 (UTC) - MrX 🖋 19:58, 20 December 2019 (UTC) Caption says that gun has twelve gagooses. Stand back. SPECIFICO talk 20:16, 20 December 2019 (UTC) I have to admit it is a rather amusing lineup. PackMecEng (talk) 20:18, 20 December 2019 (UTC) And kind of a charming, if inadvertent, confession by our respected colleague. SPECIFICO talk 20:20, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Alleged?

In #Impeachment inquiry report - and a look ahead for the lede we reiterated the consensus for the wording for the first part of the impeachment paragraph in the lead. Rusf10 just added "alleged", a word which is not in the body of the article. The user also created an WP:EGG. I object to this edit because it introduces WP:OR and WP:WEASEL, and it bypasses consensus. - MrX 🖋 22:55, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

@MrX:, you are mistaken. "Alleged" is not a weasel word, it is MOS:ALLEGED. President Trump is to be treated the same as any other person accused of a crime. An impeachment is similar to an indictment. The trial has not occurred yet, that happens in the senate. None of this is WP:OR, it is a process outlined in the United States Constitution, I suggest you read Impeachment in the United States to better understand how the process works.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:03, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

No, Rusf10, there have been at least 4 separate threads about that language and it has been very thoroughly tested, argued, and confirmed as consensus wording. I suggest you undo your revert and discuss your views on talk. SPECIFICO talk 23:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

This. ^ - MrX 🖋 23:14, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Yeah I agree even out article on the matter Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump similarly uses words like alleged. Obviously found is the wrong word here. PackMecEng (talk) 23:07, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

If you have an issue with the word "found", you should take that up with the sources. You also should have participated in the previous discussions in which consensus was reached. Your WP:OR doesn't belong in the article, and you removal of the inline tag I placed was WP:POINTY. - MrX 🖋 23:14, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

It's okay, your addition of the tag was actually pointy. Mine was the removal of a incorrect tag. PackMecEng (talk) 23:17, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

P.S. Rusf10, your words in the preceding post demonstrate and confirm that, per MrX, you are arguing from Original Research. There has been no dispute as to the facts of the case. RS tell us that over and over. The Republican and Trump response has been to deny the process, deny its seriousness, etc. RS do not say that the facts are not established. SPECIFICO talk 23:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

"Charged" is better than "found" or "alleged". Notably, the first sentence at Impeachment in the United States contains the phrase "brings charges". As for RS, we could go round and round as to frequency of words, but I'm happy to accept what the first paragraph at this NYT article says and otherwise rely on simple reasoning. Impeachment is not conviction, and that's not a POV argument (it's also not consistent with my POV anyway, as most of you are aware). ―Mandruss ☎ 23:14, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I could certainly agree with charged. PackMecEng (talk) 23:18, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Okay, we can use "charged", that would be much more appropriate that "found". I have no objection.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:20, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't agree, but if you want to change the consensus wording, you should invite the previous commenters to the discussion and wait for a new consensus to emerge. - MrX 🖋 23:24, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

This is all OR. Mandruss, Lord knows how that text got in a sparsely edited WP article on Impeachment. We don't cite other WP articles for fact. OK.

The Articles of Impeachment have no contingent language, e.g. "Maybe he did X assuming 2/3 of the Senate agrees." That is not what the document says, and it has not been the mainstream description of the investigation. The impeachment states Trump did this and Trump did that. Period. And even then, we would not quote that primary source, except that it is also reflected in the mainstream RS reporting on the subject as well. So that is that. SPECIFICO talk 23:24, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I gotta say looking over that discussion it is a little premature to say it was or is the consensus version. PackMecEng (talk) 23:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Not really. It was, and there were a baker's dozen editors involved. Now We have at most 2-1/2 dissenters, and none has addressed all of the points raised in the previous articulations of the consensus. SPECIFICO talk 23:29, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

• Pinging people involved in the previous talks, if I miss any feel free to add them. @Starship.paint:, @MelanieN:, @Markbassett:, @Symmachus Auxiliarus:, @Tataral:, and @PunxtawneyPickle:. PackMecEng (talk) 23:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: You have a fundamental misunderstanding how Impeachment in the United States works. The constitution outlines the process which is very similar to a criminal trial. First, the house impeaches (similar to an indictment) then the senate has a trial to convict and remove the president. If someone was indicted on murder charges we could not say "It was found that he murdered someone" until after he was convicted by a jury. We certainly could say that he was "charged with murder". The same standard applies here.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:42, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

[{ping|SPECIFICORusf10}}actually the impeachment and removal process is not analogous to a criminal trial. Trump has been impeached, the charges against him have been proved and voted on (535 person jury). The verdict then gets sent to the Senate where it will determine whether or not the charges are worthy of removal from office. That is all the senate does, it does not rule on or judge the articles of impeachment, it decides whether they are sufficient for removal and that is a political act. The criminality was established. Clinton was judged guilty, however the Senate did not feel that the crimes merited the punishment. A better analogy would be the sentencing portion of a trial. In the first part a verdict of guility is found, in the next session the judge considers the punishment, if any.Oldperson (talk) 23:52, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

@Oldperson:While it is not completely the same as a criminal trial, it has more similarities than differences. The senate is the jury, it is not just in charge of sentencing. This NBC News article gives an easy to understand overview of the process. It says "The entire Senate would be the jury, but with some differences from a typical civil or criminal jury" (In case anyone wants to continue to argue that this is WP:OR)--Rusf10 (talk) 23:59, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree. The process was designed as a substitute for a criminal process.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:01, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Oldperson, read the first sentence at Impeachment in the United States and try again. No, the Senate trial is NOT the rough equivalent of the sentencing phase of a criminal trial. Rather, the impeachment is the indictment and the trial is the trial and the sentencing phase. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:03, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Mandruss above. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

To repeat, we don't quote some random undeveloped WP article as fact. I think this thread is going nowhere at the moment. SPECIFICO talk 00:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

This is one of those never ending arguments, filtered, so sadly, through ideological bias. Lets take what for impeachment to occur, a simple majority is needed in the House and for conviction/removal from office to occur a two-thirds majority is needed in the Senate. At the time both the House and Senate were controlled by Republicans. What happened in the house was not an indictment, but step 1 to remove him from office, it takes action (step 2) by the senate to confirm the process. However Trump was found GUILTY of abuse of power and obstruction of congress by a "jury" of 535 members. Fact is that this argument is a non sequitur and not resolvable by consensus, but by constitutional scholars.Oldperson (talk) 00:42, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Straw Poll Alleged

Should we use found, alleged, or charged for the following sentence in the lead? A 2019 House impeachment inquiry **** that Trump solicited foreign interference in the 2020 U.S. presidential election from Ukraine to help his re-election bid, and then obstructed the inquiry itself. PackMecEng (talk) 00:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Events have overtaken this (senseless straw poll). I know nothing in PaG as regards straw polls. Anyway. The articles of impeachment have been drawn up, voted on and passed in the House of Representatives. Now awating to be sent to the Senate, as soon as the majority leader stops playing politics and games.Oldperson (talk) 00:20, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

• Charged - I think that fits the best. PackMecEng (talk) 00:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
• Charged. The definition of impeachment is not in dispute, and accuracy is not original research. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:16, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
• Charged as per discussion above.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:29, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

A straw poll is going to resolve nothing. If you really feel there's a case to be made for one of the weasel words, it's going to need an RfC. The outcome of a straw poll will immediately trigger a revert and an RfC. But really, as has been demonstrated, it's clear that the impeachment found Trump did X and, per Guy's article edit, we should let this dog lie. SPECIFICO talk 00:36, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

No, per WP:RFCBEFORE, RfC is needed only if other process fails to reach consensus. The only times we have otherwise required RfC were when we sought to modify a consensus established by RfC (and correct me if that's the case here). And, as we've said before, straw polls are never a substitute for discussion but are often the only effective way to clarify editors' positions, and have proven indispensible in that respect. That's why we use them so much; we do what works.

BTW, it's important to draw a distinction between polling without discussion and polling with discussion, so I oppose the use of "straw poll" to refer to both precisely because it makes that distinction impossible. I would have called this a Survey. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:58, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

A straw poll on this issue is ridiculous. We need RS from constitutional scholars.Oldperson (talk) 00:42, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Again, this isn't a political issue, its a matter of fact. You may not like the impeachment process in the consititution, but that's how it works. First, I directed you to the wikipedia article on impeachment, but that's not a reliable source. Okay, then I did provide a reliable source, NBC News (which is all other circumstances would be considered reliable), but now because it says somethign that you do not like, we need constitutional scholars? You need to not only read the constitution, but also a hisotry lesson. In 1998, Bill Clinton was impeached and then acquitted by the senate. The house does not convict, its a matter of fact.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:59, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

You don't seem to grasp that your WP:OR is not a substitute for WP:V. Let's stick with the sources. - MrX 🖋 01:08, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I am sticking with sources, since when is NBC's explaination of how impeachment works not reliable? It is not orignial research, this is not my own interpetation of the constitution. It is a long-accpeted fact. --Rusf10 (talk) 01:17, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

This is simple. The first relevant source [822] specifically says "found". If you want to debate the impeachment process in general, this is not the right venue.- MrX 🖋 01:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

• Query - Which of the sources say " charged" or synonym of that word? A straw poll cannot negate our core content policies. Especially in a BLP. - MrX 🖋 01:05, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

  Here are two from AP and Aljazeera. PackMecEng (talk) 01:08, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

  You're confused. We're discussing the inquiry, not the impeachment vote.- MrX 🖋 01:20, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

  @MrX: A fair point. But that nuance – inquiry "found" but impeachment "charged" – would likely be lost on a majority of readers, so it would be better to drop the inquiry from the lead and re-word to discuss only the impeachment, using "charged". This could still include about the same amount of detail as to the reasons for the impeachment. I'd be supporting that anyway, since the impeachment renders the inquiry far less lead-worthy. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:50, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

  That's fine, as long as we change the wording so that it refers to the vote on impeachment articles and not the inquiry. - MrX 🖋 13:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

  Is the ultra-liberal Trump-hating New York Times good enough?[3] First paragraph. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

  Found is not only inaccurate (as I explained above), it is itself a BLP violation. Since someone charged with a crime is innocent until proven guilty. What sources actually use the word "found", the only place I see "found" being used quote from Adam Schiff.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:17, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

  Nonsense. The report itself[4] says "Based on witness testimony and evidence collected during the impeachment inquiry, the Intelligence Committee has found that:..." and "The impeachment inquiry has found that President Trump, personally and acting through agents within and outside of the U.S. government, solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, to benefit his reelection,"[5]. - MrX 🖋 01:20, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

  Wow! You don't even understand reliable sources. Those are WP:PRIMARY sources, you're using original research, not me! The first source is a report by a congressional committee and the second uses a quote from Adam Schiff with the word "found".--Rusf10 (talk) 01:27, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

  "Those are primary sources" immediately followed by "you're using original research"?  Nixinova   T   C   01:35, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

  Oh come on, I'm surprised at you. You're suggesting that a document produced entirely by Democrats is at all relevant to our choice of what word to use here? Of course its language is going to be slanted. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

  There were Republicans on both committees. "Findings of fact" is a legal term used in a serious document that resulted from extensive sworn witness testimony. I would not not brush it off as "slanted".- MrX 🖋 13:42, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

• Alleged or accused, per May His Shadow Fall Upon You. Not charged.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:09, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
• Found - this is pretty clear. Asking what the impeachment inquiry said - just FOLLOW THE CITES - the impeachment inquiry has a final report. The preface starts “The Impeachment inquiry has found...” And functionally, an inquiry finds things, then it is the Judiciary committee that ‘charged’ if you mean drafted articles of impeachment. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:36, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

As usual, Markbassett has hit the nail on the head. Found. SPECIFICO talk 01:59, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

• Markbassett, I have to disagree. As per MOS:ACCUSED, "alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people awaiting or undergoing a criminal trial." That's what we're dealing with here. We don't say that a prosecutor or grand jury "found" that a defendant acted criminally as they are not the decisionmakers for that. In this case, the Senate is. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 15:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

• User:May His Shadow Fall Upon You - the analogy and hence language is wrong as this is not a criminal case. (It’s more of a civil service HR proceeding where at most the job is at stake. It’s similar to any court action tried on the facts without a jury, where a court must find the facts separately from stating conclusions of law.). The impeachment inquiry theoretically did all the fact-finding, and similar to Mueller report the results are “findings”. That’s a term for information from experts, such as findings of a court Masters, the findings of an Ecclesiastical Council, the findings of a medical research, or a coroners findings. The inquiry had findings. The Judicial committee drafted counts. The House made them official grounds of impeachment. The Senate will produce the Verdict. These are the words the sources will use, WP should be careful to paraphrase but not OR into mutating the language and mishandle or misportray it as about crimes. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:06, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

  Markbassett, the analogy and hence language is wrong as this is not a criminal case. Well... no. The very title of the impeachment resolution is "Impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors." Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7 of the Constitution state that "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments" and if successful, refers to the removed president as "convicted." This is absolutely analogous to a criminal proceeding. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 14:11, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

User:May His Shadow Fall Upon You - This is not a criminal case. Crime, except as a false hyperbole, is a matter of Criminal law, and particularly Felony that WP and common use refers to is established by statute, involves potential loss of property, freedom, or life. It comes in any variant of English law with protections of Due process rights to the accused, and requires proof to a definition of the statute crime which exceeds a stringent Reasonable doubt level, jury trials that require unanimous agreement, and Judicial oversight compliant within precedents of Case law and open to Appeal. None of those is present here, impeachment is potential loss of job due to alleged abuse or negligence, simply the political loss of confidence as defined ad hoc by the body of Congress. High crimes and misdemeanors explains this a bit, caveat distrust the recent bits in the lead or elsewhere there. There is no prior definition of such offenses as these charges are, it has been initiated by Pelosi dictates and done first in secret and then under Democratic methods, her direction to draft charges and under her control for delivery. WP should not apply BLPCrime or other criminal policies. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:58, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

impeachment is potential loss of job due to alleged abuse or negligence, simply the political loss of confidence as defined ad hoc by the body of Congress No, this is completely wrong. The impeachment process is not to be used for lack of confidence. As per Article II, Section 4 of the constitution, "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanor". The process is only supposed to be used for the most serious crimes, not because congress just doesn't like what he's doing.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:49, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Markbassett, This is not a criminal case. The Articles of Impeachment themselves and the Constitution both disagree with you, because they both use language pertaining to a criminal trial. There's really no way around that, even if you think the decision to impeach was wholly political. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 14:17, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

User:May His Shadow Fall Upon You - Again ? This is not a criminal case. You should read High crimes and misdemeanors which covers the distinction. Or Atlantic's The Common Misconception About ‘High Crimes and Misdemeanors’, or here and here. Or just google about it. While one might be impeached for an actual felony, such as Bill Clinton's perjury to grand juries, impeachment does not require a felony and it would be separate from any criminal prosecution. For this case in particular, "Abuse of power" and specifically "asking for investigating a political opponent" is not a felony nor defined in the criminal statutes. If it was, there would be many people locked up over the 'collusion' investigation requests. Impeachment is a political action - for whatever a House majority deems suitable grounds and whatever result a two-thirds majority among Senators decides. Over & out Markbassett (talk) 03:25, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

• Charged is the proper term here and the parallel in criminal court. The House used "probable cause" a few times. Charged indicates more weigh and evidence than alleged, but "found" sounds like a jury or trial ruling and is too strong. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:46, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
• NOT charged, because that very term "charge" is used for articles of impeachment (Trump was charged with abuse of power and obstruction of congress). An inquiry does not charge articles of impeachment - the House is the one that charges. As to what I find appropriate - found, yes, or alternatively, reported - since they literally wrote a report. starship.paint (talk) 04:59, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

  @Starship.paint: Just in case you missed it, this. My bottom line is that the word "found" is too misleading without clarification that would be excessive detail for the lead. Therefore if there is objection to "charged" on the basis of what I would characterize as hair-splitting, the only solution acceptable to me is to omit the inquiry from the lead, which I would do anyway – and which wouldn't mean omitting the reasons for impeachment. The lead does not have to mention the inquiry specifically, now that we have an impeachment. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:38, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

  @Mandruss: - I didn't miss it. Hence, check out the below. starship.paint (talk) 07:13, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

• Alleged or Accused are the best terms as per MOS:ALLEGED. As per that MOS, "alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people awaiting or undergoing a criminal trial." That's exactly the situation here. Until the Senate conducts a trial, "wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined." So, alleged or accused is what the MOS directs us to use. "Charged" is inappropriate because it connotes a criminal offense, and Trump was not charged under a criminal statute nor are criminal statutes cited in the articles of impeachment. "Found" is definitely inappropriate because, ultimately, the Senate is the one who will make that determination. Using "found" in this context is akin to saying "the prosecutor found that Mr. Smith committed a crime" or that a grand jury "found" the same. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 15:29, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
• The impeachment inquiry Found (as in, findings of fact) that Trump solicited foreign election interference. The Impeachment charged him with abuse of power and obstruction of congress. These are two different things that some editors seem to be conflating. - MrX 🖋 18:56, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

  (as in, findings of fact) - If they are "findings of fact", why does the Constitution make us waste time in a silly and pointless Senate trial? You're talking about semantics, and we look to sources for matters of fact, not semantics. While there are sources that use the word "found", they don't mean that the U.S. Congress (as contrasted to the House) has now judged the charges to be true and factual. That is the impression that we are trying to avoid giving readers, many of whom lack your sophisticated understanding of this usage of the word "found" – particularly in the lead, where (1) we don't have the space to explain the nuances, and (2) many readers stop reading. Our target needs to be 10th grade reading level at most. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:53, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

  "(Key) Findings of fact" in the sense used in the Trump-Ukraine Impeachment Inquiry Report does not adhere to the same legal standard as a case tried in a civil or criminal court. I guess you can thank the founding fathers for creating such a broken process a impeachment. You see, they said they didn't want a king but actually they sort of did. As I have wrote before, I'm not concerned that using the word "found" will confuse or mislead readers. Hell, I understood that impeachment was an accusation by congress by the time I was 10 years old. It only became complicated when modern media made it so. - MrX 🖋 14:27, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

  If you in fact understood that at 10, I'm not surprised; you're a smart guy. But you are NOT the typical or average reader who must be our target. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:45, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Or MrX could be Chelsea Clinton and learned it at the dinner table? But even if he's just some guy, I don't think we should overload this article. If editors don't know the details. That's why we have wikilinks. Most readers I think do understand. Each reader can learn the details at her own speed, and we needn't embarrass or condescend to those who need to look beneath the surface and click through for clarity. SPECIFICO talk 22:59, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

That's why we have wikilinks. Well then we have a fundamental philosophical disagreement (there's a shocker). I don't think following links should be required for understanding of the content. Links are supplemental, not essential. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:05, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, it's a matter of degree, isn't it? We don't explain what "born" means in the opening lines, although it would certainly add excitement to the story. SPECIFICO talk 23:10, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, which is what "reading level" is all about. "Born" is well below our 10th grade target. This nuanced meaning of "found" is quite a bit above it, people just generally aren't that articulate, and many (most?) of those who are that articulate are also educated and politically informed and don't have a lot to learn from our lead content about this impeachment. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:24, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it depends on any technical meaning of "Found" - it could be any of a dozen English synonyms: Concluded, determined, established, and at least 9 more. SPECIFICO talk 23:26, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

To the uninformed (who are our sole audience on this) it can imply case closed – as could concluded (also a synonym for "ended"), determined, and established, and probably most of the remainder of that dozen. It is not a word usage commonly found in American life, and don't forget those for whom English is a second language (most of Europe, etc). It is not 10th grade reading level. We are now circular. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:48, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I think you've gone pretty far afield looking for a good debate here, maybe even up the creek. The tide may carry you back out. It's pretty clear that the intelligence committee reported that ABCD occurred. SPECIFICO talk 23:52, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Nothing like a good metaphor for literary flourish, but we'll see. The intelligence committee is not the U.S. Senate. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:01, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• Found is indeed the correct word. It is the correct legal word, and appropriate in layman's terms. Honestly, I find^{(see what I did there?)} opposition to this rather peculiar. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:44, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

  Scjessey, Honestly, I find(see what I did there?) opposition to this rather peculiar. The opposition comes from our Manual of Style. I don't see why there should be a separate standard for Donald Trump. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 14:18, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Impeachment wording proposal B

Trump was impeached by the House of Representatives in December 2019, making him the third U.S. president ever to be impeached. The House charged Trump with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, after a House impeachment inquiry reported that Trump solicited foreign interference in the 2020 U.S. presidential election from Ukraine to help his re-election bid, and then obstructed the inquiry itself. The inquiry also reported that Trump withheld military aid and a White House invitation in order to influence Ukraine to publicly announce investigations into Trump's political rivals.

Nobody has a problem with inquiry reported that Trump withheld military aid..., so I ran with "reported" in the earlier sentence as well.. starship.paint (talk) 07:13, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

References

"House of Representatives" should target United States House of Representatives. "[F]oreign interference in the 2020 U.S. presidential election" should probably target the more specific Foreign interference in the 2020 United States elections#Presidency of Donald Trump. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:03, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

This would be fine if you change "reported" to "found". The House committees conducted an official investigation with sworn witness testimony. The substance of the official "report" are the findings of fact. - MrX 🖋 13:07, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Seems like there's a bottomless pit of dyk footnotes that could be added to every sentence of most articles. Critical content should be explicit, and I'd hate to see us start doing pirouettes after each sentence of the article. SPECIFICO talk 15:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

In my view there is a middle ground between information important enough for open prose and information not important enough to include. Notes serve that purpose fairly well. We are nowhere near a note for "every sentence" in this article, and any note is subject to challenge like any other content. No need to wholesale oppose the technique. I think this particular note is worthwhile. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:01, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Impeachment wording proposal C

• I could live with word "findings" provided we also include the word "charged", absent an acceptable alternative to "findings".
• I'm underwhelmed by "reported".
• Starship's last sentence is covered by "solicited foreign interference" and I don't need that level of detail in the lead.
• I don't need the word "inquiry" for the purposes of the lead. "Investigation" is accurate enough and would be more meaningful to the average reader, for whom "inquiry" usually means "question". I "inquire" about room availability.
• While I would love to squeeze all of those links into it, that's secondary to good writing and MOS:EGG. We should write prose first, link what we can second, and not fret about what we can't. Some of the links can wait for the body prose.
• Other assorted objections ranging from substantive to nitpicky.

In December 2019, Trump became the third U.S. president in history to be impeached. The articles of impeachment charged him with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. The charges stemmed from House of Representatives findings that he solicited interference from Ukraine in the 2020 presidential election, and that he then obstructed the House investigation into those actions.

―Mandruss ☎ 08:07, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Too fussy. No need for history lesson list of poti. The link to the 2020 article is no EGG and should remain. SPECIFICO talk 08:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

What 2020 article? What is poti? ―Mandruss ☎ 09:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I think poti is the plural of POTUS. See also scoti, floti, et al. - MrX 🖋 13:12, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: What link to the 2020 article are you referring to? ―Mandruss ☎ 22:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

This is a good version. I like the idea of a footnote to explain how rare impeachment is and to clarify that Nixon wasn't impeached. I would also support this version without the footnote if that's what other prefer. - MrX 🖋 13:34, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:43, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Impeachment wording proposal D

We don't need the footnotes since we can link to the article on U.S. presidential impeachment. The general Impeachment in the United States article IMO needs some overhauling - three presidents lumped in with a senator, a cabinet secretary, and 15 judges (one was convicted for champerty).

On December 18, 2019, the House of Representatives impeached Trump, making him the third president in U.S. history to be formally charged with high crimes and misdemeanor. The two charges were abuse of power by soliciting interference from Ukraine in the 2020 presidential elections and obstructing the House investigation into those actions.

Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 23:27, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I have retargeted the "impeached" link in proposal C per your comments. It's slightly EGGy, but not unacceptably so imo. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:14, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

I prefer the footnote to your EGGy third president. And it's not only EGGy, but at first glance at the target's TOC it looks like Trump is #4, not #3. That's suboptimal for a link from "third president". ―Mandruss ☎ 04:18, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

At first glance, the paragraph seemed clear enough, at least to someone who's familiar with the subject, but you're right. I edited it to clarify that three were impeached and a fourth wasn't because he resigned before the proceedings got that far. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:37, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Impeachment wording proposal E

This is a modified version of the version I currently favor that was offered by Mandruss (talk · contribs), but with tightened language. Agree with Markbassett (talk · contribs) that "found" is the correct technical term, and this tightened language makes use of that:

In December 2019, Trump became the third U.S. president in history to be impeached. The articles of impeachment charged him with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. The House of Representatives found that Trump solicited interference from Ukraine in the 2020 presidential election, and then obstructed the House investigation into those actions.

Sources

Submitted for your consideration. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:53, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

I would support this version. - MrX 🖋 17:25, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support as second choice. "Found" feels a bit stronger than "findings", somehow, and unnecessarily so. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:37, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
• Shorten to one line. The word “findings” are appropriate in the thread above about ‘the impeachment inquiry xxxxxx’. But when summarizing the impeachment alone it just needs to state the result. “The articles of impeachment were abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, by soliciting interference from Ukraine in the 2020 election and then obstructing the House investigation into those actions.” Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:32, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Is editing premature at this point?

In this edit, User:MrX reverted the wording back to "found" despite the fact there never was a consensus to use that word to begin with and only three editors have expressed support for the word. The majority of participants in the discussion clearly support the use of charged or my original wording of alleged. The word "found" needs to be removed immediately because it is misleading readers of the article.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:08, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Some editors, including one admin who shall remain nameless, think it's constructive to edit based on how discussion is trending but before there is an actual consensus. I strongly disagree. That it's "misleading readers of the article" is your opinion, which, when it comes to editing the article, is irrelevant without a consensus to that effect. I prefer "charged" but I feel less urgency to protect humankind from the damaging effects of the word "found" at this point. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:50, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

@Rusf10. You seem to be conflating impeachment inquiry with impeachment. I think I've explained this at least three times? Have you read the proposals below? That's where we're at now. - MrX 🖋 20:25, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

"Impeachment" vs. "impeachment inquiry" is just going to confuse the average reader in the lead. Impeachments don't "find" anything, they are like indictments. Referring to an impeachment inquiry as having "found" something is like saying as a result of the investigation, the prosecutor found the suspect to have murdered his wife. You are presenting one person's version of the story as a statement of fact when in reality a trail has not even been held.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:51, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Don't confuse content with process, which are separate and distinct. This subsection is about process, the content discussion is elsewhere. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:56, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Found/findings is the terminology used in the report from the investigation, and in news reporting about the reporting. I disagree that our readers will be confused by distinguishing between the impeachment (charging) and the inquiry (investigation). Also, impeachment is not equivalent to a criminal prosecution, so that analogy is inapt. - MrX 🖋 00:06, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the comments but come to different conclusions. Yes ‘ “found” is like saying as a result of the investigation’ - that is what the impeachment inquiry did. And yes, it is like presenting one version of the story, which is covered by it has stated attribution. So “found” or “findings” is OK. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:44, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

What does it matter that he is "third"?

Seeing that all proposals above spend a considerable number of words stating that Trump is the third U.S. president in history to be impeached, I wonder why that is an important qualifier for the lede section. Especially considering that we then indulge in a footnote to explain that he may have been fourth but really was third because technically Nixon resigned before the House had time to vote on impeaching him (which was a foregone conclusion). Just say "Trump was impeached by the House of Representatives", and leave presidential history to historians. — JFG ^talk 22:48, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Because that's what makes it historic, which is too important to be consigned to a mere footnote. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:18, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

OK. For now, I made a separate short sentence out of this factoid. — JFG ^talk 23:20, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

The lead tells us he is the 45th president. He became the oldest first-term U.S. president, and the first without prior military or government service. Now he's the third to be impeached. It's like a baseball card. I don't think it's necessary to say third in the lead. (By the way, I don't think you can say that Nixon was "really" impeached. Resignation is not a technicality.) The only advantage is that it tells us that Trump's presidency is very unusual. The same is true with his lack of military or government experience. I think, however, being the "oldest first-term U.S. president" doesn't mean much. He is not the oldest president (yet), and, given increasing longevity, his "record" is sure to be eclipsed. (Joe Biden is 77.) No, this should not be a baseball card.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:22, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Agree that "oldest" should be removed, but we had consensus to keep it about a year ago. Maybe try a WP:CCC poll on that one? Personally, I also agree that the "baseball card" approach is not appropriate for encyclopedic articles about political figures, but editors and sources seem to give weight to every count fo unusual things in Trumpism… — JFG ^talk 23:34, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Come on. This is not "third deadliest shooting in U.S. history", let alone runs batted in (hyperbolize much, Jack?). It's the impeachment of a president. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:42, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

I tend not to like ranking facts, especially in prose. While I agree that such material sounds like a baseball card, the impeachment is historically significant and rare, so putting it into that context would seem to benefit readers.- MrX 🖋 23:51, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

I remember the max-size newspaper headline, CLINTON IMPEACHED. I saved that newspaper for awhile as it reminded me of DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:26, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Regarding "oldest", I think there is a fetish about the longevity of US Presidents. There are two articles: List of presidents of the United States by age and Lifespan timeline of presidents of the United States. Gerald Ford has a section about "Longevity", making it hard to tell if he should be classed as a short-lived or long-lived president.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:46, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Could we stay on topic, maybe? We're trying to reach a consensus on wording about the impeachment, which is already difficult enough. Or maybe I'm due for a wikibreak. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:55, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I think it is on topic; it's just looking at the lead holistically. I think if you just say he's been impeached, that sounds momentous. If you say he's the third, with the inevitable footnote discussing Nixon, I think that's a distraction. People can go elsewhere to read about the history of impeachment. As to whether it is "rare", I don't think we can give a historical assessment of that yet. While it was rare in earlier times, there have been two presidents impeached in my lifetime, plus Nixon who was almost impeached. Or to put it another way, two out of the last four presidents have been impeached. I think it would be better to avoid this issue.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:48, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I've read about the worries that impeachment will become far more common. At this point they are nothing more than worries, we don't use crystal balls here, and two of the last four could easily be an anomaly. If two out of four becomes four out of seven, we or our children can revisit this question around 2044, give or take. I'll go on record as supporting the removal of those words in that case (maybe wiki-archaeologists will find this in the archives and I'll be the deciding !vote). ―Mandruss ☎ 05:54, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

IMO we should include "third" since virtually every news story reporting the impeachment mentioned it, usually prominently, usually in the first sentence. This is not to be decided by our opinions of whether it matters or not. It must be decided by the weight of coverage in reliable sources. See for example NBC News "President Donald J. Trump was impeached on Wednesday. For the third time in the nation's history, the House of Representatives voted to impeach a sitting president", NYT "The House of Representatives on Wednesday impeached President Trump for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, making him the third president in history to be charged with committing high crimes and misdemeanors and face removal by the Senate.", NPR "House lawmakers voted to impeach President Trump on Wednesday in only the third such rebuke in American history.", and so on. Note that these sources don’t find it necessary to explain about Nixon; they just say Trump is the third. And so should we. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:46, 22 December 2019 (UTC) For the record, if this is structured as a proposal to remove "third", I oppose that proposal and favor retaining "third". This is based on Wikipedia policy, not personal opinion which seems to be the main reason cited above for removing it. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:50, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Then again, the daily media are not burdened with a too-long article that goes into the details of Doc Bornstein, Ronny Johnson, World Wrestling, etc. And they don't have wikilinks that can give infinite detail and color commentary to those who are interested. SPECIFICO talk 23:05, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Impeachment wording proposal F

After a number of edits attempting step-by-step improvements to the impeachment paragraph, here is what I have reached:

An impeachment inquiry found that Trump pressured Ukraine to help his 2020 re-election bid by requesting the announcement of an investigation into Joe Biden, his potential Democratic opponent. The inquiry reported that he withheld military aid and a White House invitation, and then obstructed the inquiry itself. Trump was impeached by the House of Representatives on December 18, 2019 for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. He is the third impeached president in U.S. history.^{Here be the footnote on said history}

I think it's clearer, more concise, and better-linked than the prior version. Opinions and updates are naturally welcome. — JFG ^talk 23:25, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

This is more or less the same bad text that you have proposed at least twice before. After much discussion on the talk page, your insinuation of Biden and your removal of the link to Interference in the 2020 U.S. Elecions were both rejected. Please drop it. SPECIFICO talk 23:35, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

@JFG:I cannot support this as long as the word found is used. Perhaps the "impeachment inquiry" should not even be mentioned in the lead and only the impeachment vote should be there. The word "found" comes from a partisan report issued by Adam Schiff's committee. While it may be Schiff's opinion that he "found" something, the jury is still out on that matter.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:43, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Alright, and apart from this one-word issue that is still under debate (and that I did not touch), what do you think of the rest of my attempts at improving the readability of this paragraph? — JFG ^talk 23:45, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, disregarding that word, it is much easier to read and flows better.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:48, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I give this proposal an F. We have already moved way past the Joe Biden side show. "requesting the announcement" grossly understates the coercion aspect. The phrase "The inquiry reported" is just awkward. - MrX 🖋 23:56, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

How is Biden a "side show" when the current paragraph says Trump asked Ukraine to investigate his "political rivals"? His request is the whole basis for impeachment. Had Trump asked for an investigation into a random businessman instead of a potential election opponent, we would not be there. Besides, when did we get a plural in there? Did Trump ask Ukraine to investigate another US politician? 2A01:E34:EE49:4250:759F:944A:DC0C:D7DE (talk) 07:50, 22 December 2019 (UTC) (JFG on the road)

There was no justifiable reason for investigating Biden. Trump was trying to extort Ukraine to tip the upcoming election. The basis for impeachment was the attempted coercion, withholding congressionally-approved aid, recalling Yovanovich, signaling China to interfere, obstructing congressional subpoenas, lying, using his personal lawyer as a state department proxy, and using the power of his office for personal gain. I probably missed a few, but you get the idea. - MrX 🖋 13:30, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

"Had Trump asked for an investigation into a random businessman instead of a potential election opponent..." - Seriously? That would still be abuse of power, subversion of Congressionally-mandated national security aid, deprecation of official process, etc. Those are core issues that have been front-page news for three months now. Random is in the eye of the beholder. WP:CIR. SPECIFICO talk 14:26, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Excessive detail for the lead of this top-level biography. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:22, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

That's funny, considering that my version is much shorter than the current one. 2A01:E34:EE49:4250:759F:944A:DC0C:D7DE (talk) 07:50, 22 December 2019 (UTC) (JFG on the road)

(JFG on the road) I'll believe that when the JFG account confirms it. That reply doesn't sound like JFG to me, on two counts. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:11, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

• There's no way a version of this that mentions Joe Biden is getting into the lead. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:31, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
• A resounding no to this one. I agree with Scjessey above. User:JFG, please stop proposing things like this. It should be clear by now that we are NOT going to mention the Bidens in connection with the impeachment. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:36, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Recognition?

The comment by Christianity Today is interesting, but it doesn't belong under the "Recognition" heading.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:18, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

It belongs somewhere; aside from the wow factor, it's significant enough that multiple RS are reporting on it. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Yeah I saw that addition here and added to here. seems rather undue considering it is an editorial as well. PackMecEng (talk) 03:50, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Point taken. I created a new section "Political support" for it. Comments? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=931633396&oldid=931628567 soibangla (talk) 03:54, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I have deleted it. It was completely out of place in the Recognition section and IMO does not belong in this article anywhere. It's a response to the impeachment. Put it in that article. MelanieN alt (talk) 05:07, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Agreed as not appropriate for this BLP.--MONGO (talk) 10:34, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

This Christianity Today editorial is obviously the work of a deep state evangelical. Many people are saying that even Jesus was treated more fairly than Trump, believe me. starship.paint (talk) 12:56, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

This magazine has been attacking Trump for years. This isn't any more newsworthy than The Weekly Standard or The Atlantic attacking Trump. Architeuthidæ (talk) 15:44, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

That is completely untrue. You are just echoing Trump's inaccurate claim that it is a "far left" magazine. The magazine has "up till now reserved judgment" on Trump. This is the first time they have come out against him. I still don't think it should be in this article, but it is a pretty dramatic action. 16:35, 20 December 2019 (UTC) Sorry, the post loaded before I could sign it. --MelanieN alt (talk) 17:08, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

You didn't sign your post so I can't see who is attacking me and questioning my integrity. First of all, I'm not echoing anything. I didn't say it was a "far left" magazine. I said, as you will see after re-reading my post, that the "magazine has been attacking Trump for years." Here's a Christianity Today scorcher from 2017: [6]. Along with many other swipes at Trump and his administration, the writer declares "if there is anyone who needs mercy, it is Trump" and "the gospel of Jesus Christ casts the behavior of Trump in a transcendent light, and that light looks to us like darkness." I'm sure I could find much worse from during the campaign. Does the magazine dislike Trump? Yes. Is this anything new? No. Not sure why this is getting so much attention, but there are very, very few pro-Trump magazines in circulation. Architeuthidæ (talk) 16:59, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Neither you nor Trump is being "attacked". SPECIFICO talk 17:26, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Let's be clear. Christianity Today has not been attacking Trump for years. That's complete nonsense invented by Trump to try to minimize the impact of this quite significant editorial, and it's sad to see such obvious bullshit being echoed here like it was a fact. With that said, this is a biography of Trump's entire life, and it is difficult for me to imagine this one editorial will have a substantive effect on the man or his presidency. So I oppose inclusion at this point, although I reserve the right to change my mind at a later date. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:39, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

"Public support is much bigger than one paragraph"

Yes, so I suggest this paragraph be restored and others add more content about his political base. soibangla (talk) 04:01, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I think this begins to run afoul of the WP:SYNTH, as you're taking the citations about near-universal opposition to impeachment by evangelicals, then citing the Christianity Today editorial for an "a-ha!" moment. When/if we begin to see sources discuss the contrast between the rank and file and it's top media outlet, then there maybe be something to cover here. ValarianB (talk) 15:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Okay, everybody (looking at you Val), how about a new subsection under Political Career titled Evangelical Support. The NY Times has an article today about how broad that support is, contrasting it to the Christianity Today article. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/20/us/politics/christianity-today-trump-evangelicals.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage Doubtless, there are many other sources. Thoughts? Lahaun (talk) 23:33, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

OMIT - this is a familiar situation, and here’s my usual reply: It’s a story-du-jour, of no lasting BLP impact to his life or WEIGHT suitable for inclusion. Please don’t just shove in the morning’s feed, and there should be at least a 48-hour holding period. Being covered today just means they had nothing better. Come back if it grows further or is still in the news next week. Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 02:48, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Mark Galli in Christianity Today

"Christianity Today, an influential evangelical magazine, says Trump ‘should be removed from office’": [7]. Seems kinda noteworthy? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:43, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it should be included in this article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:45, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: I attached you to existing discussion. Pinging you so you can find this tree in the forest. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:51, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the swamp, Martinevans123 SPECIFICO talk 14:34, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

OMIT. Just story-du-jour. One op-Ed is of no great significance or lasting impact, and lacks WEIGHT. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:49, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Maybe we need to keep a list as a buffer of events that 1/2 think are flash in the pan news and 1/2 think are obvious sea changes. I recall things like the kids in cages being called one-day Huckaburgers, and no doubt the Watergate break-in would have been called similar for at least a year after it was reported. Seriously, a list or log wouldn't be a bad idea. SPECIFICO talk 14:34, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Although both author and the publication are notable, I doubt that they carry much weight up on Capitol Hill. I must admit I was hoping that the article might actually open with the sentence "a near perfect example of a human being who is morally lost and confused." Oh well, good luck all. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:47, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

LOL. Sorry, I just have to see it in writing. Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current president of the United States, and a near perfect example of a human being who is morally lost and confused. Before entering politics, he was a businessman and television personality. It's actually not that far from some of the overBOLD edits to our first sentence. Carry on. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:06, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Has Trump been impeached?

This is not a discussion forum or a news feed. Either edit the article or make a specific edit proposal. - MrX 🖋 21:21, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Preponderance of reliable sources say Trump has been impeached. Certainly he is de facto impeached, even if there may be a subtle legal ambiguity. Continued discussion is a waste of time unless or until there's a huge shift in media perspective. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:05, 21 December 2019 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. So apparently there has been some gun-jumping on this page and probably many others on Wikipedia. I admit, this is some legal nuance that caught me off guard. But it turns out, that until the House (Nancy) gives the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate, Trump hasn't been "impeached". From Noah Feldman, one of the Democrat's law professors used during the hearings to try and bolster their case: "If the House does not communicate its impeachment to the Senate, it hasn’t actually impeached the president. If the articles are not transmitted, Trump could legitimately say that he wasn’t truly impeached at all." There appears to be some dispute between the Democrat witness and other Democrats, but until this is resolved, we should note that his "impeached" status is currently in dispute. Nancy has indicated that she is going to sit on the Articles through Christmas and into the New Year, so it might be prudent to wait until she decides what to do with them. [8][9][10] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Architeuthidæ (talk • contribs) 15:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC) Remove the line from the lead about impeachment. Until the articles are sent to the Senate by the House, then the impeachment is not official or valid. Could someone with an autoconfirmed account or an administrator please remove the line? Here's a source: [11] AppliedCharisma (talk) 16:29, 20 December 2019 (UTC) Yes, Trump has been impeached. Please don't waste our time with amateur legal analysis and opinion articles. - MrX 🖋 16:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC) It was the Democrats' expert witness who said that it isn't official yet in the sources. In Wikipedia, we go by the sources, not editors' own personal opinions. AppliedCharisma (talk) 17:00, 20 December 2019 (UTC) This is correct. Feldman is a legal expert, an alum of Harvard, Oxford, and Yale. He is also a Democrat partisan, handpicked by the Democrats to explain why Trump should be impeached. Feldman's analysis should not be dismissed as that of an "amateur". Whether or not Trump has been impeached is no longer a fact. It is the source of controversy and in a state of dispute. The article needs to state this fact accurately. Architeuthidæ (talk) 17:05, 20 December 2019 (UTC) There was no witness testimony after the impeachment vote. I'm sure there are a lot of legal experts with opinions, but WP:FRINGE viewpoints don't belong in Wikipedia articles. - MrX 🖋 17:09, 20 December 2019 (UTC) Most newspapers in the country say he was impeached. We follow reliable sources. I don't care how many degrees someone has. His opinion doesn't come close to the vast number of RS. O3000 (talk) 17:15, 20 December 2019 (UTC) He published his piece in Bloomberg. I think Bloomberg is generally pretty reliable, even after the controversy surrounding the decision to not cover any presidential candidate except Trump. His degrees were in response to MrX who called Feldman an "amateur," which he clearly isn't. What's more significant than his legal training is the fact that the Democrats chose this guy specifically to articulate their views, so he's not exactly part of the vast right-wing conspiracy. You're right though, we may want to wait until more legal experts weigh in on this and see which side gains traction. Architeuthidæ (talk) 17:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC) We should keep, in the lead, the affirmative statement that he has been impeached. All Reliable Sources are treating the House vote as being actual impeachment, and previous impeachments have been dated as of the House vote. But several publications have noted Feldman's opinion, published in a Blooomberg op-ed here, and reportedly the White House is considering making the argument.[12] So we could add a sentence to the impeachment section of the text, attributed to Feldman and identified as opinion. Something like "Legal scholar Noah Feldman has stated in an op-ed that it is not an actual impeachment until the report is forwarded to the Senate, and the White House has echoed the argument." Sorry, I can't add it myself; I am not at my regular computer and would have difficulty citing references. --MelanieN alt (talk) 17:24, 20 December 2019 (UTC) I think that's a fair compromise. The legal terminology is "ministerial act of transference". It's the same reason why a guilty verdict in a district criminal trial isn't officially recorded until the sentencing hearing, when it is "mandated" by the court to the state. As the Democrats' own witness stated, the impeachment doesn't take effect until it is "ministerally transferred" or "mandated" to the Senate. As an example Kenneth Lay has his convictions expunged because they had never been mandated as he died during the process. We should be advocating for accuracy in our articles. AppliedCharisma (talk) 17:27, 20 December 2019 (UTC) I can live with that as well. I think it is also important to note that Feldman testified in favor of the Democrats, giving his expert analysis extra weight. But maybe that's just getting too lengthy, and should be mentioned in the main "impeachment of Donald Trump" article. Architeuthidæ (talk) 17:32, 20 December 2019 (UTC) I would oppose including Prof. Feldman's opinion, unless other reliable sources have taken note of it. I don't see that it meets WP:DUEWEIGHT. - MrX 🖋 18:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC) Strongly agree. soibangla (talk) 18:55, 20 December 2019 (UTC) The moment the House passed the first article & Pelosi confirmed it, Trump was impeached. GoodDay (talk) 17:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC) It's absolutely immaterial when the articles are transmitted to the Senate. The essential fact, for the bio article, is that after investigation, based on the testimony of the witnesses, the House found XYZ. Why are we negotiating some extraneous and tenuous technicalities into the article with a pair of single purpose accounts? Time to hat this. SPECIFICO talk 17:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC) Are you in charge of this page, SPECIFICO? Wikipedia is a collaborative process and we're still working through this issue. Please don't do anything that looks like WP:OWN. Remember, this article falls under WP:BLP which means it requires high discretion to get right. AppliedCharisma (talk) 18:01, 20 December 2019 (UTC) With all due respect, it hasn't been decided yet if Trump is guilty of anything. That decision belong to the US Senate. GoodDay (talk) 18:05, 20 December 2019 (UTC) Some might find the academic gymnastics interesting, but a dash of common sense informs one that "Donald Trump has been impeached" to be a correct statement, with no need for "buts", "however", or other such qualifiers. ValarianB (talk) 18:16, 20 December 2019 (UTC) User:SPECIFICO, instead of calling for a legitimate discussion to be shut down, please note that I made a proposal for a sentence to be added to the article. Do you have an opinion as to whether or not it should be added? Same question to User:GoodDay, User:ValarianB, User:MrX, User:Objective3000, and others here. --MelanieN alt (talk) 18:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC) I don't see anything wrong with the lead, as it is now. He's the third US president to be impeached. GoodDay (talk) 18:43, 20 December 2019 (UTC) Again, I am not calling for any change in the lead. It should continue to say, without qualification, that Trump was impeached on December 18. My suggestion was for a sentence to be added to the article text. --MelanieN alt (talk) 18:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC) Possibly. That's currently in dispute, with one of the Democrat's key impeachment witnesses taking the opposite side of the ongoing debate. Architeuthidæ (talk) 18:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC) Someone will always dispute everything; and it's not relevant that he was a witness called by a Democrat. O3000 (talk) 18:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC) See my comment above. Feldman's opinion is not noteworthy unless other publications cite it. - MrX 🖋 18:56, 20 December 2019 (UTC) Update: This was just covered on CNN. I still don't think it meets the bar for inclusion in this article, but possibly in the impeachment article. - MrX 🖋 19:08, 20 December 2019 (UTC) Thanks for the note, MelanieN. I should have been more direct, and I could have addressed you directly. I don't see any basis for your suggested insertion of UNDUE detail into the biography article, which appears to validate specious claims by two editors. My comment as to the origin of the thread stands, but need not be repeated. My opinion is that we often waste time on empty discussions of Original Research and advocacy here, some of which are easily identifiable as such. SPECIFICO talk 18:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC) I would oppose the addition of the "...it is not an actual impeachment until the report is forwarded to the Senate..." line, yes, it gives too much weight to an extreme minority opinion. ValarianB (talk) 19:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC) Keep impeachment in the lead. Reliable sources have universally reported that he has been impeached and considered the vote to impeach him as his impeachment and the main event of the impeachment proceedings; this means that, for the purposes of this encyclopedia, Trump has been impeached. Wikipedia is based on what (most) reliable sources report. Congress sending over some documents and coordinating with the senate on scheduling the trial is a minor issue and a technicality that doesn't belong in the lead; it's a mere technicality that will necessarily follow from the vote to impeach him. In my view the whole "he has not been impeached" thing is a bizarre, WP:FRINGE POV that resembles birtherism and other conspiracy theories associated with Trumpism. --Tataral (talk) 19:09, 20 December 2019 (UTC) Agree with others that Feldman's argument needs significantly more traction before we say anything at all about it. If there's anything real to it, it will be all over the news within a business day or three. Maybe it's worth exhorting folks for the thousandth time that it's an encyclopedia, not a news summary service, and there is little urgency to go to press. Or maybe not. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:15, 20 December 2019 (UTC) Basically what Mandruss said. At this point there is not enough weight. If it gets some steam then we can talk about if it is worth including here. We always have the luxury of time to see how it pans out. PackMecEng (talk) 19:19, 20 December 2019 (UTC) Agree with Mandruss. The fact that the Dems called Feldman as a witness does not necessarily mean that his opinion on this matter has any weight. Only when other scholars weigh in one his side would it mean that. It eeems to go against common usage, which is that impeachment is seen as similar to an indictment. We don't say that someone remains unindicted until the bill is presented to the trial judge. TFD (talk) 19:33, 20 December 2019 (UTC) Use the wording "voted to impeach". This should be acceptable to all and avoids us having to decide how to interpret the unusual delay caused by Nancy Pelosi.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC) [{WP:RS]] say he was impeached universally. This is a minor legal distinction, and though "technically correct is the best kind of correct", I would say WP:TRUTH applies here. A parallel could be the loose use of "assault" and "battery", where RS usually use the former but mean the latter. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:16, 20 December 2019 (UTC) Frankly, this whole thing sounds like an argument academe and we should ignore it until and unless it travels outside of Harvard Yard. WP:RECENTISM WP:DUE WP:RS O3000 (talk) 20:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC) I like Rusf10's suggestion. "voted to impeach" is something that everyone is in agreement with, and is factually correct. It's a new concept to most people that there actually is a difference between "being impeached" and "having articles of impeachment passed in the House," but this language satisfies both sides of the debate. The framers apparently never envisioned a scenario where the House would vote on articles to impeach a president and then refuse to hand the articles over to the Senate, so Nancy's created this bizarre state of limbo where nobody's really quite sure what to do here. Until she decides, let's go with "voted to impeach." Architeuthidæ (talk) 20:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC) I don't. Trump was impeached. McConnell created the bizarre situation by acting as Trump's surrogate. I wonder if the framers of the Constitution envisioned that scenario. - MrX 🖋 20:38, 20 December 2019 (UTC) Can we stick to what's in RS? I did a search and can't find any RS that say Pelosi refused to hand the articles over to the Senate. O3000 (talk) 20:51, 20 December 2019 (UTC) Mitch? He doesn't have the articles so he's currently powerless as to how the Senate will handle them. If/when the Senate comes into the picture, we can note his actions, and whether he goes with a dismissal or a trial. About Pelosi's refusal, I'm going by ABC News...here's the link: [13] "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the House will not send the Senate the just-passed articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump until she sees 'the process that is set forth in the Senate.'"Architeuthidæ (talk) 20:56, 20 December 2019 (UTC) @MrX:Can you please stick to the factual points here rather than inserting your own biased interpretation of the situation? McConnell cannot do anything until Nancy Pelosi delivers the articles of impeachment to the senate, that's an undisputed fact. We do not need to start a debate about who is to blame.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:24, 20 December 2019 (UTC) Of course he can. But, this is turning into forumy stuff. O3000 (talk) 21:45, 20 December 2019 (UTC) This discussion is premature at best, and an unhelpful distraction for now. Move forward with the proposals above as if Feldman had not written that piece, and we can change direction if and when that's warranted by further developments. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:32, 20 December 2019 (UTC) Yes trump has been impeached 2600:1702:2340:9470:E9B3:1FEF:7FF8:427D (talk) 23:07, 20 December 2019 (UTC) Is there actually a reason to have this discussion, or can we hat it now? soibangla (talk) 23:14, 20 December 2019 (UTC) Comment - the House drafted the Articles of Impeachment, the House Judiciary Committee approved two, and the House passed the two articles in a partisan vote. Nothing else happens until the House submits the Articles to the Senate. At this point, impeachment is nothing more than an admonishment. The Senate decides whether or not to remove him from office. Partisan is as partisan does, and since Republicans comprise the Senate majority it is highly likely the impeachment will either be dismissed or a full blown trial will be held and POTUS will be acquitted. Atsme Talk 📧 23:33, 20 December 2019 (UTC) Please stop posting your personal opinions here O3000 (talk) 01:10, 21 December 2019 (UTC) @Objective3000: I mean that is basically covered in most RS on the subject right now. What are you on about with personal opinions? PackMecEng (talk) 02:22, 21 December 2019 (UTC) Perhaps right-wing sources state: At this point, impeachment is nothing more than an admonishment. Further, Nothing else happens until the House submits the Articles to the Senate. ignores creation of the trial rules, appointment of trial managers, determining witnesses, planning trial strategy. O3000 (talk) 11:36, 21 December 2019 (UTC) I agree completely. When deprecated media organizations seize on an arcane theory that contradicts the massive bulk of reporting by real news sources, that is an indication the content doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Those wishing to discuss the technical minutiae of the impeachment process can use other websites for that purpose. - MrX 🖋 13:39, 21 December 2019 (UTC) An impeachment is an impeachment. It is not an admonishment, it's not unofficial, it's not invalid. E.g., Clinton was impeached by the House and acquitted by the Senate. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R4426: The impeachment process provides a mechanism for removal of the President, Vice President, and other “civil Officers of the United States” found to have engaged in “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” The Constitution places the responsibility and authority to determine whether to impeach an individual in the hands of the House of Representatives. Should a simple majority of the House approve articles of impeachment specifying the grounds upon which the impeachment is based, the matter is then presented to the Senate, to which the Constitution provides the sole power to try an impeachment. A conviction on any one of the articles of impeachment requires the support of a two-thirds majority of the Senators present Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 23:49, 20 December 2019 (UTC) Per impeachment, "it is similar to an indictment in criminal law." That it has not been transmitted to the Senate is a red herring. There are dozens/hundreds of reliable sources that can be presented to show that Trump has, in fact, been impeached. This entire discussion is absurd. soibangla (talk) 23:51, 20 December 2019 (UTC I agree with SoibanglaThat the who discussion is absurd. And I am not so sure that WP is a reliable source, after all WP disclaims itself from being an RS. We semi literate (law wise) wikidenizens, pursuing our own partisan ideologies seek to twist the argument in our ideological favor,to no avail. It is a waste of time and words. Here is a quote mpeachment is a constitutional remedy to address serious offenses against the system of government. It is the first step in a remedial process--that of removal from public office and possibl disqualification from holding further office. The purpose o impeachment is not unishment; rather, its function is primarily to maintain constitutional government. Deschler Ch 14 App. pp 726-728; 105-2, Dec. 19, 1998, pp 28107- Impeachment proceedings have been initiated more than 60 times since the adoption of the Constitution. 3 Hinds Sec. 2294; 6 Cannon Sec. 498; DeschlerBy the way Trump is not impeached until the articles of impeachment are sent to the Senate. House Practice:Guide to ImpeachmentOldperson (talk) 00:08, 21 December 2019 (UTC) @Oldperson: - your last sentence is wrong. Your source, the U.S. Government Publishing Office, says The respondent in an impeachment proceeding is impeached by the adoption of the House of articles of impeachment. starship.paint (talk) 03:00, 21 December 2019 (UTC) @Oldperson: - also from your source, section 1, last paragraph: The House votes to "impeach" in the constitutional sense when it adopts an impeachment resolution and accompanying articles. A majority of the House members voted yes to two articles, impeaching Trump. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:18, 21 December 2019 (UTC) “Voted to impeach” in lead per Rusf10, and maybe add the MelanieN line about it down in the impeachment section. The Melanie line really belongs more in the impeachment article. But wait a couple days to see if this continues or is just story-du jour. It is getting coverage. Google is showing mentions of Feldman opinion and Trump maybe using that — in CBS, CNN, Washington Post, Washington Examiner, NY Post, Boston Globe, Fox News, NYPost, others. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:20, 21 December 2019 (UTC) Yep, yup, yeah, yes, affirmative, da, ja, oui, ha — he's been impeached.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:37, 21 December 2019 (UTC) @MelanieN:. At this point, do you find this discussion constructive? If not, please feel free to hat it so we can talk about improving this article. Does anyone object to hatting this? If we wait until the last person resists the temptation to chime in, it's going to be a long winter on Wikipedia. SPECIFICO talk 14:23, 21 December 2019 (UTC) I second that emotion. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:33, 21 December 2019 (UTC) Mandruss, you are a great American. SPECIFICO talk 14:41, 21 December 2019 (UTC) MANDRUSS AMERICA GREAT AGAIN! starship.paint (talk) 14:57, 21 December 2019 (UTC) [14] Another source and subject matter expert saying he hasn't been impeached. AppliedCharisma (talk) 15:22, 27 December 2019 (UTC) Fox News is not a reliable source, when the subject is Donald J Trump. Oldperson (talk) 21:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC) That statement has no basis in policy. PackMecEng (talk) 21:12, 27 December 2019 (UTC) Fox News is WP:Partisan thus not a RSOldperson (talk) 21:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC) That is now how that works. PackMecEng (talk) 22:56, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

"Dismissal of James Comey" section vs. "Political support" section

Notwithstanding the removal of content regarding the Christianity Today editorial, I submit the "Dismissal of James Comey" section should be removed as it is but one element of the Trump-Russia affair that is extensively covered in other articles and there is no compelling reason to focus specifically on the Comey matter in this BLP. This is especially true because the article is too long and efforts have been made to trim it. The Comey section is a prime candidate for removal.

By contrast, the sources of Trump's political support are hardly touched upon in his BLP, and this is vital to understanding the man. Trump derives major support from evangelicals, but that word does not appear once in his BLP. It should be included in a 2 to 3 paragraph section that discusses the major sources of Trump's political support, which might also include farmers, the white male working-class and other constituencies. soibangla (talk) 18:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

With the benefit of hindsight, I think we could condense the material down to a succinct sentence or two and fold it into the existing material under §Russian interference and §Special counsel investigation. I would support a brief section on Trump's evangelical support, as long as it's not inordinately focused on the Christianity Today editorial. - MrX 🖋 20:32, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Metions of Evangelical support, would be (by default) favorable/supportive so it must in balance include references to the Christianity Today editorial. A magazine founded by Billie Graham, though his son Franklin has taken a contrary POV. If Christianity Today is not brought into the article, then one is left with the assumption that all Evangelicals support Trump. Most do, so it seems, but apparently there are those within the movement who perceive him to be a threat to Christianity.Oldperson (talk) 23:24, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes and not yet. Reduce Comey but not eliminate - I think Special counsel needs a line to set that part of context. The question of what to say on political support should be later and separately tackled, don’t think things are ready for that. Markbassett (talk) 15:33, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

The firing of Comey, while not as shocking as Nixon's Saturday Night Massacre, was far more consequential. The firing, and Trump's radpidfire confession of corrupt intent to Lester Holt and the Russian visitors, is described as a turning point (or "inflection point" for the GenX'ers) between normal governance and self-interested manipulation in contemporary US politics. SPECIFICO talk 21:34, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Lead is too long

Wikipedia's guidelines are a maximum of four for a good article. Breaking guidelines is allowed on Wikipedia, but there has to be a good reason. We should all be interested in writing a good article. Someone who can actually edit this page should consider culling the lede.TheLonelyGoatherder (talk) 05:14, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

That and the article length are recurring topics of debate here, but we have limited time and more important things to discuss at this point. Trust me, this is not being overlooked. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:23, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Look, I don't care if my country falls apart and becomes a medieval backwater, I just want ledes to conform to Wikipedia's guidelines.TheLonelyGoatherder (talk) 07:57, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Me too. I take it you think it's easy to cull this lead, so stick around and observe for awhile. It would consume a hundred or two editor-hours to get that lead down to "a maximum of four" [paragraphs] (even if we could) and, as I said, we don't have it to spare right now. Wikipedia Axiom #1: There is never enough time to do everything that needs done. Speaking of conforming to Wikipedia's guidelines, it's lead not lede, per the Wikipedia guideline MOS:LEAD. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:04, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Lead, lede. That's like Tomato/Tomato. Though I do agree that we have better things to discuss right now. Perhaps at a later date when the impeachment stuff is no longer at the forefront we can have a more appropriate discussion on how to decrease the lead length, but not now. Mgasparin (talk) 08:17, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

No. Lead and lede is not like your example, they are different things, even if people use them interchangeably in error.. --Malerooster (talk) 19:49, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the lead should ideally consist of four paragraphs, but it's not an absolute rule, and it's sometimes exceeded in articles such as this and Obama's biography. There simply is so much going on with Trump that it's really hard to condense everything into four paragraphs, especially now in the middle of things – the first paragraph is not really a full paragraph but just briefly introduces the topic. In the long run we should strive for four paragraphs for Trump too, but "now is not the time," as Theresa May would say. (I do however believe that the investigations and impeachment should comprise a single, fifth, final paragraph, like before, rather than two paragraphs, fifth and sixth, lik now). --Tataral (talk) 11:57, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

"Look, I don't care if my country falls apart and becomes a medieval backwater, I just want ledes to conform to Wikipedia's guidelines." I just want to chime in and say how much I love this comment. #TheLonelyGoatherder2020 -- Scjessey (talk) 15:08, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

• Could drop the Mueller para. It has more to do with Presidency article than here, and it’s had no large or enduring BLP impact- it’s a whole lede para to say one Investigation happened and resulted in nothing much to him. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:51, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

No.Trump talked about the witch hunt every day for nearly 2 years. SPECIFICO talk 15:54, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Agree that the Mueller paragraph should be dropped, agree it is more suited to the lede of the Presidency article.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:06, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

It`s spelled lead..look it up in an actual dictionary..this needs to be in both places as it is relevant 2600:1702:2340:9470:E534:654A:35F0:C56C (talk) 19:08, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

The Mueller investigation needs to be mentioned in the lead, but it shouldn't be a full paragraph just on the Mueller investigation; instead it should be mentioned in a fifth paragraph that summarises the investigations and impeachment of Trump. --Tataral (talk) 23:01, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

This is a waste of time. Editors agree on slimming, but say it's too hard. Then they object to any edits that are done.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:32, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

NAFTA US-M-CA agreement added 2x to lead

This language,

He re-negotiated the terms of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), resulting in the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA).

Has been added to the lead, reverted (by me) and then re-added to the article by an editor who was solicited/canvassed by the editor who originally inserted it.

The language is misleading. The USMCA agreement that was passed by the Congress bore little resemblance to what Trump proposed. The version ultimately passed was negotiated by the congressional Democrats to fulfill longstanding environmental- and labor-related agendas of their constituents. It's dubious for Trump's bio article. It's highly dubious for the lead, and it's unacceptable to craft misleading language for any WP content. At best a more accurate version that sticks to RS reporting of the "compromise" version Congressional Democrats negotiated could go in the article body. Better, it could just in the Trump Presidency article, IMO. SPECIFICO talk 02:32, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

As the editor who was solicited/canvassed by the editor who originally inserted it, I'll state that I removed this per process, not content, and restored it after it was correctly pointed out that I removed too much, which is hardly canvassing. I have no opinion on the content. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:39, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

That said, if you BRD-reverted (I'm thoroughly confused at this point, which is what happens when process itself is perpetually up for debate), it should have stayed out pending consensus – In My Opinion. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:49, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

And because Democrats worked directly with Lighthizer, a globalization skeptic who agreed to make numerous adjustments to gain their support, the deal is now materially different from what Mexico and Canada originally agreed to, and it remains to be seen if they'll accept the revised deal. It ain't done. soibangla (talk) 02:47, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

What? This is not even in the body of the article, is it? I thought we were following a strict interpretation of the guidelines that forbids anything from going into the lead unless it is already covered in the body of the article. I don't see how this is significant in context of Trump's life. As far as I'm concerned, this has to get in the back of the line behind Trump University and the Trump Foundation, both of which are covered in the body of the article and both of which met with opposition when I tried to include them in the lead. - MrX 🖋 03:12, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Off topic, strictly speaking. A meta idea that died on the vine. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:13, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

I wish we were following that strict interpretation, but we too often haven't. Many editors have done lead because that has highest visibility and let others worry about the body. For this to be enforceable, it needs a consensus and a consensus list entry. 42 is a good number. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:18, 22 December 2019 (UTC) I would prefer we have a guideline rather than a firm rule. There are probably exceptions that would justify inclusion in the lead before coverage in the body: subject is impeached; resigns; is re-elected; slips on a banana peel; and so on. But partially re-negotiating NAFTA seems to be in the same class of accomplishments that would be worthy of a certificate of participation. - MrX 🖋 03:38, 22 December 2019 (UTC) Ok, well we already have a community level guideline – you referred to it above. We currently have no mechanism for local guidelines, but a consensus could be worded to allow exceptions by prior consensus. It would be firmly flexible. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:51, 22 December 2019 (UTC) User:Mandruss False premise. You’re correct that this article has often ignored LEAD, and that some edits go directly to LEAD without body at all. But that accusation is a false premise because NAFTA *is* in the article at campaign positions and at domestic policy economic section, coverage there is comparable to TPP and China which are both in the lead. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:56, 22 December 2019 (UTC) If you're correct, your issue is with MrX, not me. I was addressing the larger issue only, not this case. As you said, the larger issue exists, so I don't need a "premise". ―Mandruss ☎ 05:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC) There’s no “if” to NAFTA being in the article alongside TPP and China. And your response is indented to MrX so was responding to a premise which is not correct. He phrased it as a disbelieving question, you were going down a path as if it were true and got to talking about making guidelines about it so I felt it needed a reality check. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:07, 22 December 2019 (UTC) We apologize for mistakenly discussing something useful, and hey thanks for keeping us honest. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:24, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. I'll take a content position and oppose this, per my general feelings that such things don't belong in this lead (see #Lead is too long) and that existence of bad stuff doesn't justify the addition of more bad stuff. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:28, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion per WP:WEIGHT and the misleading language. It barely deserves a mention in the body, let alone the lead. Incidentally, the default position is that it should not be in the article per WP:BRD. Why is it currently there? -- Scjessey (talk) 13:57, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support 2600:1702:2340:9470:E9E9:AD46:81D3:2DF5 (talk) 20:51, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - I've gone ahead and removed the content pending consensus to include it. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:35, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Tax-payer costs involving Donald Trump

Is there an article on tax-payer costs involving Donald Trump?[15] QuackGuru (talk) 15:39, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't think this is weighty enough material. O3000 (talk) 15:49, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

It's come up from time to time on this articles when editors have proposed shoe-horning the Trump talking point about reallocating his presidential paychecks to various government agencies. There might be material on a more broadly-defined standalone article that also discusses various issues relating to emoluments, Trump Organization and family ties to foreign governments, and the like. SPECIFICO talk 16:06, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Also hypocritical because Trump's major criticism of Obama (other than the birth certificate business) was how many times Obama went golfing,or how much time he spent golfing.Oldperson (talk) 17:02, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, yes it's hypocritical. But if we listed every instance of Trump's hypocritical nature, Wikipedia would have to buy more disk space. O3000 (talk) 01:20, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

More seriously, Trump major criticisms of Obama prior to 2015 seem to be over Obamacare, Trade, the Afghanistan war and not being able to catch Osama bin Laden, immigration, Benghazi, etcetera. Golf trips would be down around #26 on the list. Back then Obama faces vile insults like no other president, the most disrespected president... well, up until Trump was elected. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:01, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Edit request - Conservatism in the United States template

Donald Trump is listed under people in this template. Therefore, this template should be added.Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:13, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - The article is already bursting at the seams and this template adds nothing to the understanding of the subject. Trump is not known for advancing conservative philosophy. - MrX 🖋 13:45, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support Trump has done more to advance conservative philosopy (economic and cultural) than any president before him. Tax cuts for the rich, deconstruction of the government and it's oversight and monitoring role (this is the heartbeat of corporations and the wealthy), and appointment of over 75 young, right wing judges, and two right wing partisan judges to SCOTUS, and let's not forget who his supporters are, Franklin Graham, Liberty Lobby, NRA, the carbon and extraction industries, right wing and racist militia's, racists. Yes indeed he is the most conservative of all presidents even more so than Reagan, Nixon and the Bush family.Oldperson (talk) 17:08, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - Before anyone thinks about adding more templates, consider the following: Post‐expand include size: 2076492/2097152 bytes - we are apparently very close to the maximum limit for templates. If this one gets added, something else may have to go. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:47, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per MrX. I test-added {{Conservatism US}} using Preview and it would kick the post‐expand include size up to 2093727. Cost exceeds reader benefit. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:24, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support 2600:1702:2340:9470:D9B6:AF80:CDAB:A80C (talk) 03:46, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. If having a slightly reduced reader experience means saving the article from breaking, I say don't do it. Mgasparin (talk) 05:23, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose: We are close to the template limit, so it will probably not benefit the already large article. Also, MrX is right. Although Trump is known for aggressively promoting what he sees as conservatism, in fact, if we consider the Nolan chart, he is anything but. It is baffling how anyone, let alone nearly all the Republicans, could call him conservative or Republican. Conservatism in the United States has meant, and still means, liberalizing the economy and advocating a relatively small government, even when doing so may damage conservative cause. That is what Reagan believed. Trump is a different story. On the other hand, he advocates big government and denigrates every single one who implies disagreement with him. In my opinion, he is more likely to condone silencing the opposition than condemn it. He does not truly believe in a free market either. He thinks it is wise to start trade wars and decide who gets to work where. He also is weak on reducing the massive national debt, and instead has only contributed negatively to it. Ultimately, he is not a progressive, and he has failed as a fiscal conservative. If Trump were a conservative, then Barack Obama is a libertarian. GaɱingFørFuɲ³⁶⁵ 18:49, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Environmental regulation

I see that @Snooganssnoogans: has added the following reference, the Trump Administration's rollback of environmental regulations to the Presidency article. Looking at the text of this article's energy and climate section, it seems as if some of the content from this reference should be added here. The title of the section should perhaps be changed to energy and environment, assuming editors are prepared to agree that the climate is part of our environment. SPECIFICO talk 16:00, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

No thanks. It's better off in the subarticle about his Presidency.--MONGO (talk) 16:08, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

I think the coverage that is already in the article is probably sufficient at this time. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:10, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

What this reference adds, however, is what we so often lack -- an overview of a noteworthy component issue that does not rely on WP editors' subjective takes on what has due weight and which bits and pieces should be in an encyclopedia article. Countless daily occurrences (regulation changes) are dismissed per NOTNEWS, but articles like the Times survey give us an overview of what's most significant and should be considered for the article. This particular overview is noteworthy in part because POTUS appears to be giving much thought recently to environmental issues relating to his views about water pressure in toilets and dishwashers, birds endangerment by wind turbines, and the color temperature of some energy efficient light bulbs. SPECIFICO talk 16:25, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Not condoning any of his rollbacks or alterations but still not seeing why we would expand on that in this article. If it has not yet, it could go in the Environmental policy of the Donald Trump administration article.--MONGO (talk) 16:43, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

It seems like better or additional sourcing. I have no idea whether it would change or increase the size of the text. Animals and pollution is not my thing. SPECIFICO talk 17:50, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

- @SPECIFICO: - it was already in the article (perhaps Snoog found it here) When I added the reference and content, the count in the reference was 85. Now, the count in the reference is 95. Perhaps that fooled you. starship.paint (talk) 10:24, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Add it as it is relevant 2600:1702:2340:9470:C4B0:F054:9E47:1711 (talk) 23:58, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Restored lead wording discussed on talk

I have restored the lead wording that @Starship.paint: placed in the article on December 11 following a talk page discussion among many editors. It had been replaced with a that omitted the fact discussed on talk that POTUS did not seek disparagement only of the Bidens but also sought to have Zelensky promote the DNC/Crowdstrike/Clinton conspiracy theory. Edits that change the meaning of lead wording discussed on talk should really be brought back to talk before going in the article. SPECIFICO talk 14:29, 28 December 2019 (UTC)