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 Superseded by #15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 (Nov 2016, Dec 2016) (Superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)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 Superseded by #35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 (Sep 2016, February 2017, wording shortened per April 2017, upheld with July 2018) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019)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 Superseded by #17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 (Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017) (superseded by #17 since 2 April 2017)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

This has to be in the lead, as it is one of the most significant things in this article. I support it. Minecrafter0271 (talk) 02:26, 2 January 2020 (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)

Impeachment in the first paragraph proposal A

Discussion here has largely died down (even allowing for the holidays) and this is ready for one or more specific proposals. Any such addition will modify #Current consensus item 17. This is not about the treatment of impeachment later in the lead, which is under discussion elsewhere on this page. This proposal is:

Add at the end of the first paragraph: He is the third U.S. president in history to have been impeached.

• Support as proposer, per discussion above. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:49, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
• Notification of participants. @Tataral, PackMecEng, Snooganssnoogans, Jack Upland, Cullen328, Markbassett, Ollie Garkey, MrX, AppliedCharisma, Nixinova, Scjessey, and May His Shadow Fall Upon You: ―Mandruss ☎ 04:02, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose as previously discussed.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:22, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

  @Jack Upland: As I read it, your opposition was to a mention in the first sentence, which is not this proposal. By all means oppose this too, but it's not "as previously discussed". ―Mandruss ☎ 04:31, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

  Still oppose.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:47, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support mentioning Trump's impeachment in the first paragraph but not in the first sentence. We should treat his impeachment as we do in Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, each of which mentions their impeachments in the fifth sentence of the lead paragraph. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:43, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
• Strong Support of the concept, but with a couple of changes - the impeachment of Donald Trump is the second most significant event in Trump's life after actually winning the presidency, and it has received an enormous amount of media coverage - commensurate with its significance. To not have it in the very first paragraph of his biography would be just plain weird. This is as close to a slam dunk as you're every likely to get in Wikipedia, and opposition to this could only be regarded as baffling. However, I think it should be the second sentence of the paragraph, not the third, and I think "in history" is redundant. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:16, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
• Mention it in the lede but not the first sentence - we should match what we do for Bill Clinton and Andrew Johnson. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 20:37, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

  @May His Shadow Fall Upon You: Given your references to Clinton and Johnson, we'll take your !vote as "Mention it in the first paragraph but not the first sentence". First paragraph is not lead. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:04, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support per reasons discussed above. Both the above proposal and the modified proposal by Scjessey are equally acceptable to me; I have no strong preference. --Tataral (talk) 23:52, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose As previously discussed. It already is in the lead, a second placement is inappropriate. I would support reducing it to one line after the concluding Verdict, but until then think the position as a closing para for the ongoing events is the best approach. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:45, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
• Remove altogether. The impeachment doesn't take effect until the articles have been referred to the Senate, so President Trump is not currently impeached. What it currently says in the intro is misleading and a violation of WP:BLP. AppliedCharisma (talk) 15:17, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose – Keep this where it is, at the end of the lead section: it is the latest thing that happened in Trump's life, so chronologically consistent with the lead's biographical approach. — JFG ^talk 08:48, 3 January 2020 (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)
• I'm thinking it should be OK to mention Biden -- seems as OK to mention alleged wrongdoing by Vice-President Biden as it is to mention alleged wrongdoing by President Trump. Don't see a reason mentioned why where a couple editors said no. Markbassett (talk) 03:13, 29 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)

The dismissal of James Comey is now only a footnote in the history of the Trump administration, so it's undue to give it any prominence in this article. It can absolutely be something that is detailed elsewhere. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:54, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO:, it's clear that consensus supports removing or reducing the section, so I reduced it. DannyS712, soibangla and myself would like the content removed, MrX and Markbassett would reduce the content, while only you have suggest otherwise. Given this overwhelming support for at least reducing the content, could you please self-revert the revert you made? Thanks. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:58, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Dude, you put in that Trump fired Comey because he was concerned about the Mueller investigation that began 10 days later as a result of his having fired Comey. Nobody agreed to that. And actually, the language you scrubbed was extensively discussed on talk before it was adopted. Extensively. So in cases like that, just show us your proposed replacement. That way you'll learn whether there is in fact consensus per talk for your suggested substitution. SPECIFICO talk 02:40, 30 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 Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 109#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)
• Support mentioning new trade deals in the lead. The Trump administration has not only renegotiated NAFTA into USMCA, but also signed new agreements with Japan and South Korea, as a replacement for TPP. A partial China deal is coming, so we can identify a pattern in Trump's trade policies, that has enough weight for the lead section. Exact wording to be defined. — JFG ^talk 17:46, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
  • The pattern in Trump's trade policies is that he launches costly trade wars, then makes a handful of insignificant agreements with nebulous promises of more in the future. The only exception is USMCA, which is basically a renegotiation of NAFTA with a bunch of stuff House Democrats wanted added to it. Not lead worthy at all, apart from the costly trade wars part, of course. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

  Please read the RS reporting on USMCA. It was the Democrats who negotiated the current deal and it's centered on far-reaching provisions Trump's team sought to exclude. It is nothing like what Trump announced as his USMCA deal. SPECIFICO talk 17:56, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion per my previous comment in this section. This is not something that the subject is known for. However, he known for Trump University [sic] and Trump Foundation. Let's not treat the lead as a certificate of participation. - MrX 🖋 13:28, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

  Say what? Before Trump's electoral campaign, nobody had heard of his "university" and foundation. He is definitely not "known for" these ventures. — JFG ^talk 08:36, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support putting into lead list of items - it's a major point of his campaign, the largest trade item out there. Seems silly to mention withdrawing from a not-yet-existing TPP, the Iran nuclear deal, and give the sensational label for China tariffs, yet *not* mention NAFTA which is a larger part of the article and the bigger trade deal. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:03, 31 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)
• Oppose - per Mandruss. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:00, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
• Comment. Update: As shown above by me, this template would increase the post-expand include size by 17,235 bytes. The post-expand include size, at 2,076,492 on 25 December as shown above by Scjessey, is now at 2,081,466. Adding 17,235 would exceed the limit of 2,097,152 by 1,549. Thus it's no longer possible to add this template without removing one or more other templates or breaking one or more templates at the end of the article. That renders this discussion moot (and a SNOW close for omission) unless there are viable suggestions on what template(s) can be removed that is/are less important than this template. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:50, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

One or several political opponents?

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)

Good point. I forgot about the Clinton conspiracy theory. - MrX 🖋 16:50, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

At the current speed of conspiracy propagation, we might soon have heard the news that Buttigieg's uncle is a Ukranian hacker and Eliz. Warren's uncle was actually up to mischief in Odessa. SPECIFICO talk 18:56, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

• It seems better the other way. I don't think the line in that "discussion among many editors" was much of a much, it seems better and reasonable to copyedit fix the error of "rivals" (plural) into "opponent" or just "rival". Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:33, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
• As the editor who corrected the lead statement from "investigations into his political rivals" to "an investigation into a political opponent",[6] I commented: If we're not gonna name Biden (per talk page opposition), at least let's not mislead readers into thinking Trump requested investigations of several "political rivals": there's just one. Also, "opponent" is more neutral language and a traditional description of contenders in presidential races. I stand by this rationale. Trump is not getting impeached for mentioning the Clinton email server, but for asking Ukraine to investigate the Bidens. — JFG ^talk 17:40, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Please review the sources that describe the July 25 phonecall and other Trump statements. On the call, Trump mentioned the Crowdstrike/DNC/Clinton conspiracy theories 8 times (I believe). So denying that is not "correcting" anything. SPECIFICO talk 17:58, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

It is correcting the inappropriate plural "rivals". Adding Crowdstrike might be a separate improvement, but is OTHERSTUFF and not part of any copyedit fix of the pluralization error. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:12, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

The articles of impeachment charge Trump with requesting an investigation of Joe and Hunter Biden, punkt schluss, nothing about Clinton. As Hunter Biden is not a politician, I have changed the sentence back to mentioning a singular "political opponent" (though said opponent shall remain unnamed per various editors' mesmerizing opposition). — JFG ^talk 09:02, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

• Yeah I have to agree, plural is misleading in this situation. I see where you are coming from what the Clinton stuff, but this is about the Ukraine incident. PackMecEng (talk) 16:32, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

• Pack, please see above and the investigations committee report and the 7.25 call transcript. SPECIFICO talk 18:10, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

• The sentence is about the impeachment inquiry, their findings were about Biden not Clinton. PackMecEng (talk) 18:53, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

• Note - nobody recorded it here, but User:JFG made a copyedit, User:MrX reverted, citing SPECIFICO but cited to outdated 11 December talk and not current consensus. I have restored the correction as the current TALK with no opposing discussions active. SPECIFICO doesn’t seem talking about the plural. If MrX opposes, needs to put some TALK here or comments referring to here, otherwise it looks like consensus is change and his revert looks like a mistake. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:12, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

• Not really. Cheers. SPECIFICO talk 22:05, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

As usual, I don't really understand what Markbassett is trying to communicate ("needs to put some TALK here"; "SPECIFICO doesn’t seem talking about the plural." 😕???), but I think he is claiming that there is a consensus for changing the wording. There is not. To be clear, I oppose JFG's edit, for reasons explained above. - MrX 🖋 00:10, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Discussions are not votes. If you believe that Trump is being impeached for requesting investigations into several political opponents, please name said opponents and cite sources supporting this statement. The lead section of such an important biography cannot be left in a misleading state for Wikipedia readers. — JFG ^talk 08:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Purported assassination attempt

An editor has just added a bit about a very insignificant event, the so-called Attempted assassination of Donald Trump, in which a troubled young Brit tried to grab a guard's gun at a Trump rally during the 2016 campaign. The only reason this event was ever widely known is due to some coverage of the incident on BBC television. The coverage focused mainly on the kid's autism and associated legal protections. This mention is UNDUE in POTUS' biography and should be removed, in my opinion. SPECIFICO talk 23:13, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. As somebody who regularly follows American politics, I have never even heard of that incident. If that event had really been a real, serious assassination attempt, it would have entirely changed the atmosphere of the election in the following months and would have been widely covered everywhere. This is definitely not a notable incident in the biography of the President, and should be removed from the article. Guycn2 · ☎ 23:30, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I tend to agree (having, by the way, corrected the year of the edit to correctly state 2016), but the incident is apparently notable enough to merit its own article here. It would seem exceedingly odd for that to be the case and yet for the article about the subject of the attempt, no matter how "feeble" (as it was described in the media), not to mention it at all. I propose instead that the the paragraph be expanded slightly to explain that the would-be assassin was determined to be mentally ill, etc., and to better explain why the incident remained relatively unknown. General Ization ^Talk 23:41, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Completely undue, relatively inconsequential. Should be detailed as a minor incident in the article(s) about the campaign. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:56, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

There were far more significant events at Trump rallies -- "lock her up" chants, Trump attacks on working press, etc. I think it's all trivia, for the campaign article at best, where context and significance could be presented. SPECIFICO talk 00:08, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Don't all Presidents face countless assassination attempts and threats? It seems UNDUE to specifically mention one[7] in an already-packed article, unless the assassin actually came close to harming the President. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:03, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Keep it in..it`s relevant 2600:1702:2340:9470:8C71:2604:397D:9C5E (talk) 01:03, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

No it's not. HiLo48 (talk) 02:03, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

• Include 2600:1702:2340:9470:4D79:6DA0:6666:7EF8 (talk) 18:55, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I favor removing trivia. —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 02:15, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

an assassination attempt being trivial got it 2600:1702:2340:9470:3444:5E6E:46CD:DFFC (talk) 18:38, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I was WP:BOLD and remove it. This wasn't a serious attempt and many politicians experience random acts of minor desperation like this. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:17, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

• Suggest following the precedent of Obama, which was a link in the See Also section. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:45, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I completely disagree with this rationale. The article has two paragraphs on Trump's participation in professional wrestling but a single sentence on an attempt by someone to kill Trump is "insignificant"? McPhail (talk) 15:34, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I've been taking a closer look at the sourcing on that article. Basically, neither the press nor the prosecutors called this an assassination attempt. The perpetrator was a troubled young man who had a psychotic episode and was questioned under duress without counsel present who said things during that episode about killing trump. He later said he had no recollection of the incident and the prosecutor did not charge him with any violent act. The article is at AfD and the whole thing should probably be deleted, or any valid content merged with mental health/jurisprudence articles. SPECIFICO talk 16:10, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

The prosecutor said during Sanford's trial that "Sandford planned for more than a year to attack Trump, and considered using a rifle and a knife before deciding on a handgun". McPhail (talk) 17:33, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

• Exclude per WP:WEIGHT and the fact that it isn't really a thing anyway. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:02, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
• Exclude – Not enough weight for main bio. — JFG ^talk 17:30, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
• Exclude. A squabble and disruption at a campaign event that went no further. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:10, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - I don't think we should take the !votes of almost identical IP addresses with little or no other Wikipedia edits seriously. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:12, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

  I don't think we should take any argument-free !votes (votes) seriously. And we've been seeing a lot of them from IPs lately. I personally don't consider a mere "It's relevant" to be an argument, since it says nothing about why or how "it" is relevant. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:12, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I am not under any obligation to edit Wikipedia...it will just be removed as half of what I write here is..I can`t imagine who or why...nothing I have said here is any different than what others here have said except I make it a point to cut through the BS...I have been threatened here at least once..I have a right to express my opinion here regarding what goes in Wikipedia or not 2600:1702:2340:9470:3444:5E6E:46CD:DFFC (talk) 18:38, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

• Show me reliable independent secondary sources. Guy (help!) 00:22, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
• Leave it out. This was a nothingburger, just a minor incident at a rally before he became president. Sources did not, and do not, treat it as an actual assassination attempt. MelanieN alt (talk) 01:36, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
• Exclude – as a minor incident as per Melanie. And this has nothing to do with the fact my last name is nothingburger. (I wish people would stop outing me.) O3000 (talk) 01:45, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

fyi, this is being discussed at Articles for Deletion and BLPN. SPECIFICO talk 02:05, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Lead

An editor at Bill Clinton has been de-linking president of the United States & governor of Arkansas, etc in the lead. The editor is planning to do the same type of de-linkings for the leads of all the bios of US presidents & US vice presidents. Just a heads up for those here. GoodDay (talk) 15:13, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

This editor has passed on those plans per the conversation here ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 15:41, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

? I’m not seeing a reason to remove those, they seem OK by WP:MOSLINK, and a widespread norm that seems unlikely to get undone everywhere. (Then again, I’m still using capitalised President of the United States and know that’s gone from universally done to mixed now.) Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:17, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Housewife vs. homemaker?

This article used to read that Trump's late mother was a "homemaker." I'm not sure when it was changed to the current "housewife." Is it possible to change it back to "homemaker"? I feel the current wording is a bit awkward. KardashianFan (talk) 00:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I think "homemaker" is an awkward euphemism.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:13, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

And "housewife" is a bygone expression. She was not married to a house. "Homemaker" is now the appropriate occupational title for someone whose primary employment is tending to a family and managing a household. Change it back. MelanieN alt (talk) 01:43, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

"housewife" is a bygone expression. Merriam and Webster disagree.[8] Wikipedia should follow common usage (dictionaries are in the business of researching and documenting common usage), not lead it. This principle easily outweighs personal opinions about what is "a bit awkward", "an awkward euphemism", or "a bygone expression". While Merriam-Webster also supports "homemaker",[9] that simply means that the terms are interchangeable for Wikipedia's purposes, and status quo should reign unless there is a consensus to change it based on more than personal opinions or preferences. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:21, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Aware that dictionaries sometimes disagree, I have now also looked at dictionary.com. It says "housewife" is "sometimes offensive", which is distinct from "bygone expression" (dictionaries generally use the term "archaic" or something equivalent). Wikipedia's goal is not to avoid offending people with its use of commonly-used words (aka political correctness). ―Mandruss ☎ 02:55, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Anyway -- when she was doing whatever in the 1950s, it was being a housewife. SPECIFICO talk 03:20, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

She was not married to a house and she didn't make a home either.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:57, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Regardless of individual opinions, "housewife" was the contemporary and appropriate term in Mary Trump's lifetime. Keep it that way. — JFG ^talk 08:44, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

What do sources call her? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KasiaNL (talk • contribs) 08:52, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Generally they use the term "housewife" (which I think makes more sense, given the time she lived in). Example: "an acquiescent housewife..." -- Scjessey (talk) 15:40, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Then housewife should be used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KasiaNL (talk • contribs) 07:47, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Removal of DPRK news

I find it kinda odd that Jack Upland would remove this edit...

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&curid=4848272&diff=933439968&oldid=933438021

stating "This doesn't belong here. No direct connection to Trump & not really a major development"

when it's an addition to a dedicated DPRK subsection, and Trump has loudly declared that DPRK is no longer a nuclear threat and points to their testing moratorium as proof. This is a big deal.

I think the edit should be restored. soibangla (talk) 00:08, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Soibangla, I agree, it appears appropriate, significant and neutrally worded. Guy (help!) 00:21, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Given that there are concerns about the size of the article, no, it doesn't belong here. The dedicated subsection is not for any news from North Korea. In this case, Kim is talking about breaking a self-imposed moratorium, not a diplomatic agreement with Trump. And so far the moratorium has not been broken. We should wait for major developments directly related to Trump.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Jack, and thanks for demonstrating the slippery-slope chain of tangents that occurs when we allow that level of detail about the presidency into this article. A requires B, which then requires C and D, and so on, with little way to know when to stop. This is a one-page biography of Donald Trump, not an article about North Korea's nuclear threat. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:31, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you in concept, so should the whole subsection come out? I added the edit because if we decided to start telling the story, then we're committed to telling the story, and this is a major development. soibangla (talk) 00:49, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I would strongly support the removal of any and all content at that level of detail about the presidency. I don't know if the subsection needs to be eliminated, but we don't need 255 words on North Korea in this article. Applying the same principle to the entire presidency would go a long way toward addressing the multiple size-related problems with this article, very possibly eliminating them for the remainder of his time in office (which, lest we forget, may be another five years). ―Mandruss ☎ 01:00, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I think we need a subsection about North Korea. North Korea is mentioned in the lead. It is a flagship policy for Trump and is often a target for his detractors. His actions have been a dramatic change from his predecessors. But I don't think we need to include the whole story. We certainly don't need a running commentary on North Korea's diatribes here. I think all we need after the DMZ summit is:

Talks in Stockholm began on 5 October 2019 between US and North Korean negotiating teams, but broke down after one day.

Sources

That brings things up to date with regard to negotiations. The subsection could be even more succinct with a bit of editing.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:17, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Pretty good wording: I support it. — JFG ^talk 08:41, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

But it doesn't bring things up to date. Yesterday Kim announced he was abandoning his moratorium, after apparently conducting two ICBM engine tests earlier in December. soibangla (talk) 19:00, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I think we are going round in circles.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:13, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Agree with not including WP:RECENTISM. It could well belong on an appropriate Trump subpage, like his foreign affairs, or some NK-specific pages. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:42, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Agree with not including same-day tidbit from NYT as it doesn’t seem BLP material and lacks WEIGHT. Also it looks like an exact cut-paste of the line in the Presidency article, and enough already with xeroxing multiple times each NYT snipe du jour. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:06, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I haven't seen any conclusive reporting as to the meaning and significance of the Supreme Leader's statements. Better article content will become available with a short wait. If it turns out this marks the failure of Trump's NK strategy, that will be described in RS and will certainly be significant enough to describe in his biography. NK, Iran, Russia, and Turkey all represent major initiatives Trump has personally spearheaded. SPECIFICO talk 23:22, 1 January 2020‎

I think "failure" is a matter of opinion. People are still debating the merits of Bill Clinton's North Korean policy. Given that the Korean conflict has continued for 75 years, it never seemed likely that it would be resolved in a few meetings. I think it's overblown to call this a failure. And Trump's term is not over.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:44, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I think I said that if RS describe a failure, that will establish significance of the current juncture. SPECIFICO talk 03:31, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Oppose it..it`s relevant 2600:1702:2340:9470:3444:5E6E:46CD:DFFC (talk) 18:41, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Antisemitism

Would it be okay to add the following short sentence at the end of section 6.3?

Trump has also been criticized for appealing to anti-semitic tropes and stereotypes.

Sources

NightHeron (talk) 13:07, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I would support this if you could find better sources than the two opinion articles. - MrX 🖋 13:20, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

MrX: How about these? NightHeron (talk) 14:28, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

References

Yes NightHeron, and of course more would be better. This from the Vanity Fair article jumped out at me: “Jewish support for the GOP has been halved since Trump has been in office, from 33 percent in 2014 to 17 percent in 2018, because Trump’s policies and rhetoric are completely antithetical to Jewish values.”- MrX 🖋 14:57, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not Jewish and I'm no fan of Trump, but after reading the transcript of what Trump actually said I can't really see how his comments could be considered anti-Semitic unless viewed through the most aggrieved lens you could conceive. At worst, I would describe the comments as inartful. Trump is saying liberal Jews need to be more loyal to Israel, which is no different from what conservative Israelis have been saying for years. The sources given are largely opinion pieces, but even if they weren't it would seem to be quite a lot of fuss over not much of anything. Certainly I don't think this is significant enough for inclusion at this point. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:34, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Sensitivities to antisemitism, tropes, and canards vary widely. For that reason, it's probably best for editors not to try to interpret Trump's words directly, but rather leave it to the reliable sources. What you call a fuss, I call a phenomenon. - MrX 🖋 14:57, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Scjessey, those are well-established anti-Semitic tropes, conflating religious beliefs or family heritage with political affiliations and disloyalty to the civic order. I think this is well documented at this point. SPECIFICO talk 15:21, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

As I already pointed out, I'm not Jewish so I lack the, er, sensitivity to the sensitivities. With that said, there really isn't significant coverage in reliable sources. It's mostly opinion writers. Also, is it really a significant aspect of Trump's life? -- Scjessey (talk) 15:41, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

If you do a little research, you will find non-Jewish mainstream historians discussing more or less the libel I referred to. It really is not a sensitivity of Jewish people any more than the widely-documented charicatures of other groups. We know that politicians sometimes use "dogwhistle" references to encode their messages to fringe groups. We typically don't find explicit statements, even when the mainstream view identifies the underlying narratives. SPECIFICO talk 16:13, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Trump pigeonholes everyone: Blacks, Jews, Muslims, Asians, Hispanics, etc. We have an article on Trump and race because the incidents and coverage has been very large over decades. I think we'd need more coverage to talk to anything with any form of the word anti-Semitism. O3000 (talk) 15:55, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Four of the five sources listed above concern recent incidents, but the antisemitism issue is not a new one with Trump. Here's an excerpt from the Washington Post article from July 2016:

Rabbis and other Jewish community leaders point to a moment of reckoning following a Wednesday night appearance in which Trump, with his voice raised, defended the use of a six-point star, which resembled the Star of David, mounted over a pile of $100 bills as part of an attack against Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. The image previously appeared on a website popular with white supremacists.

"That was a turning point for many," said Lisa Spies, a veteran Republican fundraising consultant and former staffer of the Republican Jewish Coalition. "It forced people to say, 'I'm going to hold off right now,' or to say, 'I just can't vote for this guy.' "

Added Bethany Mandel, a conservative writer who has gained attention for past criticisms of the ties between some Trump supporters and hate groups: "This past week has been really scary as a Jew in America."

I'm not proposing making a big deal of the criticisms of Trump for antisemitism, just a short sentence. NightHeron (talk) 18:18, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

the KKK and the neo Nazis love him..after all some of them are good people 2600:1702:2340:9470:3444:5E6E:46CD:DFFC (talk) 18:43, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

• OPPOSE - lacks WEIGHT,and section 6.3 is for Racial views not this. While I don’t doubt one can find every conceivable allegation, plausible or not, and this one does show up sometimes, it just doesn’t show often enough or matter prominently enough. Since opening this up would then also drag into that he’s denied it, his daughter is Jewish, Israel loves him, etcetera ... let’s just skip all this. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:38, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose adding this. Trump can be accused of all kinds of bigotry, but IMO antisemitism is not one of his vices. He has fallen all over himself to support Israel, more than any recent president. His daughter is Jewish and he boasts of it. He sometimes stereotypes - for example, saying that he would rather have Jews as his accountants - but it is not in a negative way. This example, suggesting he thinks Jews should have dual loyalty to the US and Israel, is not enough to pin the label on him. He says far worse things about other groups. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:46, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't have an opinion as to this edit, but Jews should have dual loyalty to the US and Israel refers to an anti-Semitic narrative that dates back centuries. I've also never seen a report of him boasting about Ivanka being Jewish except one time in a fundraising context amid Jewish voter/donors. Not a feather in his cap. SPECIFICO talk 02:27, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Mark and Melanie.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:07, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Introductory Paragraph Should Be Rearranged

In Bill Clinton's article, issues relating to his Presidency and Impeachment are written in the first paragraph. For Trump, it seems his original summary has been extended with news topics chronologically. Can someone fix this? --Moonlight2001 (talk) 19:28, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Donald Trump is not Bill Clinton and there is no reason their bios should resemble each other in that way. Clinton was not well-known before he ran for president, and presidency and impeachment are about all they have in common. People often try to draw comparisons between presidents' articles, insisting that article A should be consistent with article B in way C, and none of that has any basis at all in Wikipedia content policy. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:52, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Not Yet. With Clinton it’s a past item given a single line. With Trump it’s an ongoing events given the closing paragraph. It is too soon to replace the para with a one-liner. The result seems predictable, but WP should state actual events, not speculate beforehand. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:44, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

This article is fake news

Pay no attention to the IP. They are rarely any help here anyway. Mgasparin (talk) 11:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This article is littered with non-factual opinions and is a completely un-encyclopedic hit piece. It is actively harming the reputation of Wikipedia by discrediting it as a source of unbiased factual information and needs to be rewritten from scratch. This is not an encyclopedia article it is socialist propaganda. I have contributed and donated to Wikipedia in the past, but will not be doing so in the future. Your sincerely 203.160.170.131 (talk), Former Wikipedia contributor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.160.170.131 (talk) 09:23, 3 January 2020 (UTC) I'm sorry to hear that, Mr President.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:32, 3 January 2020 (UTC) It seems that one of your president's supporters have found their way here to right great wrongs...Mgasparin (talk) 11:59, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Iran escalation

The media unanimously agrees Trump has taken a significant step in escalating tension between the United States and Iran with the assassination of Qasem Soleimani. A well-respected correspondent at BBC News questions the peculiar timing of the assassination, noting that it is meant as a deterrent, rather than a response to action. I have no specific proposal to put forward for the article, but I do ask my fellow editors to consider what is happening and think about how best we can cover this event, the inevitable consequences, and the impact it might have on the upcoming election (which Trump himself ironically opined on in 2012) as events unfold. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:11, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

• Not here. The assassination might get a line in Presidency of Donald Trump, but it’s not enough BLP or WEIGHT to go here. And an impact to election seems weak speculation - the election is far off and not plausible this would be significant to it. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:46, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

• It is definitely significant enough to go into the body already. One can easily find the sources. The general was the de facto #2 man in Iran who had influence all over the Middle East. If major conflict begins, it will be lede-worthy. We can take out Jerusalem and North Korea, the first doesn’t seem to have led to much impact, and the second isn’t seeing much success. starship.paint (talk) 01:09, 4 January 2020 (UTC)