Talk:Donald Trump

Highlighted open discussions

• #RfC: books in lead

Current consensus

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

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

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

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

04. Superseded by #15

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 (Nov 2016, Dec 2016) (Superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)

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

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

07. Superseded by #35

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 (Sep 2016, February 2017, wording shortened per April 2017, upheld with July 2018) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019)

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

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

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

11. Superseded by #17

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 (Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017) (superseded by #17 since 2 April 2017)

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

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

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

15. Superseded by lead rewrite

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

16. Superseded by lead rewrite

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

17. Superseded by #50

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

18. Superseded by #63

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

19. Obsolete

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

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

21. Superseded by #39

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

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

23. Superseded by #52

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

24. Superseded by #30

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

35. Superseded by #49

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

36. Superseded by #39

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

45. Superseded by #48

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RfC: books in lead

Uninvolved close requested at WP:ANRFC.[1] Latest !vote 22 Sep, latest discussion 21 Sep. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:47, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

A recent discussion saw quite a lot of comments on wanting to change this sentence in the lead: He co-authored several books, including The Art of the Deal. Let's discuss to produce a consensus whether it should remain, or be changed. Which sentence should be present in the lead? starship.paint (talk) 08:10, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• Option A (no change): He co-authored several books, including The Art of the Deal.
• Option B: He published several books, including The Art of the Deal.
• Option C: He has had several books published, including The Art of the Deal.
• Option D: Omit from the lead completely, per WP:UNDUE.

- starship.paint (talk) 08:10, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Survey for books in lead

• Option C first choice, Option B second choice - the amount of ghostwriting done on Trump's behalf leaves me uncomfortable with Option A. Reading his tweets, the ghostwriting seems necessary. Between Option B and Option C, as Trump himself is not a publishing company, Option C is preferable. starship.paint (talk) 08:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
• Option D: omit it altogether as UNDUE for a lead, but will accept published, had published, released, contributed to. Donald Trump CLAIMS to have co-authored the books; other informed parties (including the author and publisher) dispute this. A reasonable reader would not take "publish" to mean he stitched the binding himself, but they would think "co-authored" meant he wrote it, which is not supported by the facts. No one thinks "wrote" means "holds the copyright for." GreatCaesarsGhost 12:53, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
• Option C or Option D (leaning to D). For me, this is a binary thing. Either we use the accurate "has had published" language (which I freely admit is a little awkward), or we don't have anything at all. Trump is not a publisher or an author, so options A or B would be inaccurate. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:39, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
• Option B or Option A - One need not be a publishing company to have something published, as per the dictionary definition of the word. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 13:42, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

  @May His Shadow Fall Upon You: You just wrote: One need not be a publishing company to have something published. Absolutely correct, but you do need to be a publishing company to publish something (leaving aside the whole self publishing thing). That fact that you worded your response the way you did argues that option C is the way to go. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:54, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I think that "published" does not exclude the same meaning present with "has had published". But "has had published" sounds terrible. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 14:06, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

As I said in my comment above, "has had published" sounds a little awkward, but it is at least accurate; however, claiming that Trump published something (or wrote something, frankly) would be wrong. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:09, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

• Option B or Option A. B sounds much more natural than C, and it's similar in structure to the opening line of the It Takes a Village article. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:59, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
• Option D first choice with Option C as 2nd. Since there are reliable claims that trump did little to nothing in the authorship of the books best to either leave them off or word it more neutral that he has books published about him but without the addition he was somehow the author of them. ContentEditman (talk) 17:44, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
• Option C (first choice) or Option D (second choice). The most accurate statement appears to be C: "has had published". Since The Art of the Deal is a fairly commonly known book title, it does seem to warrant inclusion in the lead paragraph. Lindenfall (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
• Option C or Option D (equally weighted). Agree with Scjessey’s reasons above. —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 21:59, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
• Option D: omit it altogether as UNDUE for a lead. Since he almost certainly had little to do with their writing, and lies about his role, they do not warrant any mention in the lead, and only short mention in the article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:17, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
• B - The usage "published a book" is fairly common, especially where the instigator of the publication, in this case Trump, is not the author. I don't think "published" necessarily entails a press and a truck. As to D. Yes, we do have body content and a separate article for details about this book, but think it was undeniably a significant factor in Trump's early fame, with a brilliant title, and it preceded a lot of other famous Trump branding, such as his TV career and race-related trolling. SPECIFICO talk 16:29, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

C is also OK. D is preferable to A. SPECIFICO talk 13:19, 22 September 2019 (UTC) Emphasis added 10/31. Better to get it out of the lead than to have wasted this discussion with no change. 13:47, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• Option D first choice with (very reluctant) Option C as 2nd. Gandydancer (talk) 16:54, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
• Option D most certainly. He is not well known for being an author or book publisher, and many politicians have written or published books. If we must include a mention, Option C would be the best method, but removing the word "has" from "he has had". Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:16, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
• Option C or A seem best of the choices - option A (no change) seems sort of OK because we've not got anything new to really push for a change, and option C seems sort of OK because 'had published' covers the ones he is sole author for as well as the co-authored ones. Though at eighteen, it is "numerous" or "many" rather than "several" books. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:33, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

How many books is Trump the "sole author" of? -- Scjessey (talk) 12:11, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

He may be the only one credited, but no one seriously believes he penned a single word. He isn't capable of such a feat. That's what his biographers tell us. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:37, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

• Option D. Too messy: you can't easily mention the books without getting into the weeds of his not having written them. Guy (help!) 20:20, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
• Option A He's a credited author, and that's what we can verify. Art of the Deal is an important book in terms of what it did to his Q score, so I'm against Option D. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:53, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
• Option A (Summoned by bot) Coretheapple (talk) 19:00, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
• First choice A, second choice B – Totally oppose D, because The Art of the Deal has been a key element of Trump's notability, decades before he entered politics, hence DUE for the lead section. — JFG ^talk 11:59, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

  Bankruptcies have been a key element of Trump's notability, decades before he entered politics, hence DUE for the lead section. See what I did there? -- Scjessey (talk) 12:37, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

  Yeah, JFG's argument doesn't really hold up, as Donald Trump "notability" primarily derived from him being a loud and proud sexual predator and racist, and we're certainly not putting THAT in the lead. Trump was a laughing-stock throughout the 80s, and TAotD was relentless ridiculed contemporaneously as everyone knew Trump inherited most his wealth and had no skill as a deal-maker. It's no more important than the steaks or the board game. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:57, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

  @Scjessey: No objection from me to adding a line about Trump's business fortunes and misfortunes to the lead. His casino ventures and related bankruptcies are indeed part of his notability. @GreatCaesarsGhost: Thanks for your opinion. — JFG ^talk 20:17, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

• Option A - I agree the focus should be on "author", and A fits the bill. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
• Option C first choice, Option B second choice - per User:Starship.paint -ColumbiaXY (talk) 19:46, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
• Option A Regardless of Schwartz's regrets or his claim that he wrote it on his own, there remains the fact that the book cites Trump as the co-author. It is also in the first person narrative. Should we then say that it is Schwartz who is telling the tale? Was he the one making the deals? Furthermore, let us suppose the book is full of lies and it qualifies as a work of fiction. We should remember that it was still Trump who supplied those lies. Also, the lede of the Art of the Deal's page states that the book helped make Trump a "household name" in the U.S. It is probably the book that is most associated with Trump when we talk about him as an author. His name on the book is probably one of the reasons why it sold well. Darwin Naz (talk) 03:51, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

  @Darwin Naz:Your rationale suggests you are not familiar with acknowledged facts concerning the book's origin, including the word of the head of Random House. For starters, please read WP's The Art of the Deal article. Moreover, as I presume you're aware, every ghostwritten volume is in the first-person voice but that does not warrant the personal conclusions you offer to support citing Trump as author. Please consider. SPECIFICO talk 12:34, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Are we to strike down the authors of these autobiographies or what you refer to as ghostwritten volumes and replace them with the names of their ghostwriters? By the way, in 2019, I still read reports about Ballantine publishing reprints and these still bear Trump's name. Darwin Naz (talk) 00:35, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Nobody has proposed that. Please be responsive. SPECIFICO talk 04:00, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

• Option A for the reasons stated by Atsme and Darwin Naz. Mgasparin (talk) 08:28, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
• Option D The books, especially The Art of the Deal may well have been worthy of the lead before he was elected president, but now there is much more important content that belongs in the lead. Cover the books briefly in the body, and in much greater depth in spinoff articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:02, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
• Option D UNDUE in the lead. If it is included, Option C. Casprings (talk) 13:06, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
• Option A. He is credited as a co-authored, even though he likely didn't co-write the book. Nonetheless, what's verifiable is that he is credited as a co-author, regardless of whether he participated in the writing or not. In light of Option A, Option C is just nonsense and screams of bias. EyeTruth (talk) 22:21, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
• Option D He didn't write the books published under his name, any more than he built the gaudy towers likewise. Deal with the books in the appropriate section, where we can include the full story. Anything we say in the lede is going to be UNDUE or misleading. --Pete (talk) 22:27, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
• Option D per Cullen328, Skyring aka Pete, et al. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:06, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
• Option A. This is true and simple.Jack Upland (talk) 08:27, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
• Option D - This information is WP:UNDUE in relation to everything else related to Trump's life. It's misleading to say he authored books, when they ere actually ghostwritten.- MrX 🖋 11:22, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Discussion for books in lead

Notifying previous commenters:

• @Sdkb, Markbassett, and SPECIFICO: starship.paint (talk) 08:21, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
• @May His Shadow Fall Upon You, GreatCaesarsGhost, and JFG: starship.paint (talk) 08:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
• @Scjessey, Mandruss, and Lindenfall: starship.paint (talk) 08:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

This RfC does not include options for "released" rather than "published", or for whether or not to include "ghostwritten" (which could be combined with co-authored/published/released/whatever other word), both of which have previously been discussed. I'm on mobile right now, but Starship or someone else, please add them. - Sdkb (talk) 14:13, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@Sdkb: - I didn't add them because nobody supported them other than you, and we had 10 people in the previous discussion. Too many options makes it harder to achieve a consensus. Furthermore your proposal was the very first one, at the top of the discussion, surely it would have been the most read. starship.paint (talk) 15:20, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: There was support from multiple parties for "ghostwritten" in last year's discussion, and nothing has substantively changed since then. Regarding "released", I'm honestly somewhat perplexed, since I think I made a reasonably solid case for it, but no one has voiced either support or opposition. If anyone has thoughts about it, they might be able to persuade me to withdraw it, but until then, I object to your dismissing it out of hand by excluding it from the RfC. Sdkb (talk) 15:45, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@Sdkb: - reading the old discussions, yes, there was support for "ghostwritten", but there was also clear rejections of "ghostwritten". The thing is, while in the above discussion no one has voiced either support or opposition for your proposal, the important part is that almost everyone in the above discussion voiced support for a proposal other than yours. starship.paint (talk) 01:54, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

• I regret to say that this RfC seems to be making things worse. We were either at or close to consensus in the previous thread. Now we have a formal RfC that will bring in additional new editors less familiar with the previous discussions or with the decisions made at The Art of the Deal article. Seems like this is excessively formal and likely counterproductive for a relatively unimportant matter. SPECIFICO talk 23:09, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

  I'm sorry. I tried my best on this. starship.paint (talk) 01:54, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

  No personal criticism intended. It's a result of the persistent "consensus required" tactic even after that sanction has been deprecated in favor of incremental improvement via revert and modification. Perhaps in the future an alternative to an RfC would simply be to ask an outsider to close the discussion thread. Dunno. The politics articles have lost many good editors since the "special sanctions" fiasco of the past year. SPECIFICO talk 13:40, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

  Well, nobody invited an outside closer yet... so I did what I thought was right. starship.paint (talk) 05:44, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

  For the avoidance of doubt, I meant absolutely no criticism of you. From what I've seen you have been one of the most active and clear-minded editors on this article in recent months. I was addressing the the idea that the best is the enemy of the better, and I was suggesting we try to go with the 24-hour BRD model rather than rejecting incremental improvements by reverting back to a flawed imperfect version and tying ourselves in knots on the discussion page. SPECIFICO talk 12:53, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

  Okay cool, @SPECIFICO:. I take zero offense. Perhaps we should try that. starship.paint (talk) 15:34, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@JzG: You do understand that we're only discussing the lead section here? The ghostwriting thing is already undisturbed in the article text. SPECIFICO talk 20:55, 8 September 2019 (UTC) @Muboshgu: Do you have an independent secondary RS that verifies Trump wrote the book? I have not seen anything of the sort, and apparently neither have the editors at the book's standalone article. SPECIFICO talk 00:42, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, I didn't say he wrote the book. I said he's credited as an author. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:28, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, I saw that you endorsed option A, which does say in WP's voice that he was the co-author. I have not seen any independent secondary RS verification of that. Have you? SPECIFICO talk 01:50, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

The cover of the book. He's listed as an author. And everything written about it confirms he's credited as an author. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:56, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Muboshgu, I am trying to be very clear and simple. The article text you endorse, with A states, in WP's voice, that Trump is the co-author of the book. Surely, you do not consider the cover of the book an independent, secondary, Reliable Source for that statement? Your "credited as an author" is not what option A says. Option A says he was the co-author. That's quite a different statement, and it's one that the article text does not support, per the cited references. SPECIFICO talk 12:51, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, Yes, very much so. It's fine in the body because there is space for the context. In the lede, not so much. We don't need to list every grift there. Guy (help!) 09:46, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

@Mandruss and JFG: Would either of you mind closing this RfC? If not, could you ask for an admin close? It's just sitting here now, and I believe people have mostly forgotten about it. Mgasparin (talk) 04:03, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Won't close this myself, as I'm a participant. Too early to ask for a formal close: RfCs are supposed to run for 30 days, unless consensus is obvious (not the case here). Let's wait. — JFG ^talk 08:19, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

RfCs are supposed to run for 30 days, unless consensus is obvious (not the case here). In my opinion that's a common misconception arising from the bot de-listing interval. If RfCs generally run for 30 days, it's because that's easier than fighting the misconception, not because they generally need that much discussion. This is a relatively minor issue, and I'd ask for formal close whenever discussion falls to some undefinable point. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Correction: It's more than my opinion, per Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Duration. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Won't close this myself, as it's been shown I'm not good at closing discussions like this one. Too much left brain, I'm afraid. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:23, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

All right, that's fine. I don't think consensus is going to ever become obvious here though. Mgasparin (talk) 17:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Note: It looks like someone has changed the lede to read "credited as co-author", which is different than any of the options listed here. Sdkb (talk) 07:37, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

@Sdkb: Thanks for the notice. I have now reverted to the longstanding text, pending RfC outcome. — JFG ^talk 15:25, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I’m sorry, but this isn’t an issue for an RfC. We don’t usually mince words when factual evidence says otherwise. He never authored any of the books, according to both publishers and ghostwriters, nor was he an actual publisher, which would require him owning a press that published the books. Of the three options presented here, “”C”” is the only acceptable option. Can we not just follow policy here? Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 19:00, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

We occasionally see editors claiming that their position is clearly dictated by policy so all discussion should cease forthwith. They are never successful. I suggest you !vote in the proper place. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:40, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

This is completely inappropriate. I’m not confused, neither by what I said, nor my understanding of policy. My appeal to policy is simply that NPOV be represented. I’m not “pulling rank”. Mandruss, you’re clearly a capable editor. You know full well how there tends to be an ideological spin on things. As I said, neither A nor B are technically correct, so C remains the only option, and one that’s middling at best. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 21:16, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

• I wonder how many respondants above realize that the "books" section of this article begins "Trump has published several books" -- it's kind of hard to claim there's a problem with that succinct statement in the lead, isn't it? SPECIFICO talk 02:38, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

  Good point. Lead/body coordination is too often overlooked, here and elsewhere. We should have addressed body first, then lead, but since this already so far along we should do it backwards. Wait for the consensus, then modify both lead and body as needed. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:46, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Alternative view RE: Close

I'd be more comfortable asking a more experienced editor to review or re-do the close. My concern is that the rationale for "no consensus" seems to be based on vote counts among many alternatives, a circumstance that will rarely find one alternative with a majority. On the other hand, the impetus for this was initially whether "co-authored" is accurate. It doesn't reflect the article text and it's not how the The Art of the Deal article deals with it. If I were closing, I would conclude D, omit, simply because that would be a more appropriate starting point for whatever future solution is found. B, C, and D all have reasonable objections, but there does appear to be consensus that the status quo is not good, and most editors object to A. SPECIFICO talk 02:09, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd prefer to wait for the close via the WP:ANRFC request. It's close enough to the top that it can't be too much longer, and I see little urgency here.

Hey Mgasparin – Your edit summary "strike !vote so I can close this"[2] seems a bit dubious. The point of uninvolved close is that the closer will usually be more objective, and striking one's !vote doesn't render them suddenly more objective. So you're effectively involved here, and involved close should only be used in clear cases that no reasonable person would dispute. Granted, it would be more serious had you closed in favor of your (former) position. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:45, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I am more than willing to adjust my close if you want me to. (I could also just wait though for an admin close, though). Mgasparin (talk) 06:34, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

If you're that easily influenced by what involved editors think the close should say, you shouldn't be closing discussions. Consensus assessment is not for involved editors except as I said when it's obvious.

(Not to put too fine a point on it, but ANRFC requests can be handled by any competent uninvolved editor, not just admins – despite it being part of an "administrators' noticeboard".) ―Mandruss ☎ 07:07, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I was just trying to help. I thought it was fine at the time, but now I realize it was wrong. Thanks, Mgasparin (talk) 04:56, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I would concur with SPECIFICO's view that "no consensus" should effectively default to option D, because no language is better than faulty language. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:31, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

A competent closer will probably consider SPECIFICO's viewpoint as part of their evaluation. But any close based on the consensus-assessment opinions of involved editors will result in a request for close review by yours truly, so it's sort of pointless to add what amount to Support or Oppose comments here. We don't form consensuses about consensuses. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:57, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess my comment was a bit meta. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:00, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I was a little off the mark and my self-revert edit-conflicted with you. Who decides what to do with a "no consensus", the closer or involved editors? I'm not sure, and I've seen it done both ways. But regardless, it should not be assumed that the close will be "no consensus", so we're at least cart-before-horse. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:04, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Another Mueller lead revision suggestion

Choice 1: (Suggested Version) A special counsel investigation found that Trump and his campaign welcomed and encouraged Russian foreign interference in the 2016 presidential election under the belief that it would be politically advantageous, but did not find sufficient evidence to establish criminal charges related to conspiracy or coordination with Russia.

Choice 2: (Current Version) A special counsel investigation did not find sufficient evidence to establish criminal charges of conspiracy or coordination with Russia, but found that the Trump campaign welcomed the foreign interference under the belief that it was politically advantageous.

The current description omits a lot:

1.) The fact that the report/Mueller includes Trump, not just his campaign, in welcoming foreign interference.

2.) Mueller, the report, and reliable sources state that they didn't just welcome Russian interference, but encouraged it.

3.) Fixes the current unclear nature when it occurred.

4.) Fixes the fact that the current version may unintentionally lie by omission by not including #1, #2, and #3. (Users may come across with the impression that Trump wasn't involved)

5.) Fixes improper grammar. ("under the belief it was politically advantageous")

6.) More consistent with the body

7.) More clear

The current lead omits critical information, is inconsistent with the lead, and has improper grammar. This is something that I should have caught before submitting. But the modifications are significant enough to the point where we should probably have another discussion about it. ZiplineWhy (talk) 19:10, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

!votes

• Choice 1 - Basically, the report says that the successful obstruction of justice by Trump and his entourage, along with the Trump attorneys' ultimate success in dissuading POTUS from being deposed, there was not sufficient evidence to charge a crime. Choice 1 reflects that. We could go on at greater length, but not in the lead. SPECIFICO talk 20:31, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
• Choice 3: (a more accurate, NPOV version) - After 2 years of investigation, the Mueller report "found no evidence that President Trump or any of his aides coordinated with the Russian government’s 2016 election interference", and did not conclude whether Mr. Trump illegally obstructed justice.NYTimes ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:56, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

  Atsme, that is not what either the report or RS say about the matter. Moreover, that's been rejected in many edits and the previous poll over the past 4-6 weeks. Please remove it. As you know, adding more alternatives, even when they plausibly reflect the Verified facts, makes these polls break down. You can take your shot after we wrap up the current choice. 😉 SPECIFICO talk 21:42, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

  User:Atsme yes ‘found no evidence’ is reasonable and more pointing to content. A ‘complete exoneration’ or ‘as exonerated as was possible’ would have skipping to conclusion instead. The second part might be a bit tangling history or missing context - the investigation wasn’t about obstruction of justice wasn’t, it’s that numerous behaviours during investigation for non-existent collaboration were listed to Barr for potential consideration. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:20, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

  SPECIFICO - the report itself is a primary source, and to extract information from that primary source is noncompliant with NOR - Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. It's policy. I quoted the NYTimes so why are you saying that is not a RS? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

OK let's use Bill Barr. He's a secondary source. 😉

I believe I said we use RS and btw, just to sweeten the pot, they actually represent what Mueller said. Namely that no crimes were charged due to successful obstruction and an uncharacteristic shyness on the part of POTUS, who declined to be depotused by the prosecutor. SPECIFICO talk 01:34, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Atsme: - here you are, yet again, trying to use a source from March 2019, before the public release of the Mueller Report, which cites the misleading Barr summary. And here you are again, touting the "no evidence" line. You would do well to read the RS that I will provide again. starship.paint (talk) 02:07, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

RS in April 2019: Barr letter of March 2019 was misleading

New York Times Barr ... quoted several fragments of Mr. Mueller’s then-secret report. But none of the excerpts were in context or even complete sentences, raising the question of whether he was portraying their thrust and tone accurately or skewing them to make them sound better for President Trump. Mr. Barr omitted words suggesting that there was complicit conduct that fell short of “coordination” ... Mr. Barr took a larger passage in which the Mueller report suggested that the Trump campaign and the Russian government were knowingly dancing together at a distance, and then excerpted a fragment to make it look like a cleaner exoneration ... Similarly, Mr. Barr truncated the special counsel explanation of what “coordination” meant — and didn’t mean ... In the second sentence, which Mr. Barr omitted, Mr. Mueller again emphasized that there can be a type of complicit conduct that falls short of how the special counsel defined coordination. - Washington Post As it turns out, in some cases, Barr’s characterizations were incomplete or misleading. The Mueller report is more damning of Trump than the attorney general indicated ... Left out was a key statement from Mueller that came right before what Barr quoted in his letter ... "that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts" ... Expecting to benefit may not be the same as actively cooperating, but the omission in Barr’s letter is significant nonetheless. The full sentence from Mueller casts a different, less flattering light on the Trump campaign than Barr’s letter indicated. In short, Russia wanted Trump to win, and Trump campaign members were aware that they would reap an advantage from the “information stolen and released through Russian efforts.” ... Barr at some points in his news conference used the word “collusion,” which is not a legal term for a crime ... Trump Tower ... meeting posed “difficult statutory and constitutional questions,” Mueller said in the report, but his office “ultimately concluded that, even if the principal legal questions were resolved favorably to the government, a prosecution would encounter difficulties proving that Campaign officials or individuals connected to the Campaign willfully violated the law.” (Emphasis on “willfully.”) - New Yorker The events since Barr’s letter have incinerated whatever remains of his credibility. The famously tight-lipped Mueller team told several news outlets the letter had minimized Trump’s culpability ... Then he broke precedent by scheduling a press conference to spin the report in advance of its redacted publication ... Barr acted like Trump’s defense lawyer, the job he had initially sought, rather than as an attorney general. His aggressive spin seemed designed to work in the maximal number of repetitions of the “no collusion” mantra, in accordance with his boss’s talking points, at the expense of any faithful transmission of the special counsel’s report. Barr’s letter had made it sound as though Trump’s campaign spurned Russia’s offers of help: “The Special Counsel did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign,” he wrote. In fact, Mueller’s report concluded, “In some instances, the Campaign was receptive to the offer,” but that the cooperation fell short of criminal conduct. - Politico Now that we have seen almost the entire report of more than 400 pages, we know Barr intentionally misled the American people about Mueller’s findings and his legal reasoning. As a former federal prosecutor, when I look at Mueller’s work, I don’t see a murky set of facts. I see a case meticulously laid out by a prosecutor who knew he was not allowed to bring it. - Intercept The differences between Barr’s statements before the report’s release and the contents of the actual report were so striking that the New York Times did a whole story comparing, side-by-side, Barr’s statements and the report. Barr’s statements prior to the release of the report, however, were also misleading when it came to the issues of Trump and Russian interference in the election. Barr discussed but did not linger on the portion of the report about the Russian cyberattacks against Hillary Clinton’s campaign — attacks that were designed to help Trump win the election. And Barr was disingenuous in the way he sought to cut and parse Mueller’s report to make Trump look better on issues related to contacts and links between the Trump campaign and Russia. In fact, the Mueller report’s findings on contacts between the Trump circle and Russia are extensive and damning. The report does not exonerate Trump or his campaign; instead, Mueller says he didn’t have enough evidence to bring criminal charges for conspiring with the Russians. The report states that “while the investigation identified numerous links between individuals with ties to the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign, the evidence was not sufficient to support criminal charges. Among other things, the evidence was not sufficient to charge any Campaign official as an unregistered agent of the Russian government or other Russian principal.” “Further,” the report adds, “the evidence was not sufficient to charge that any member of the Trump Campaign conspired with representatives of the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election.” But the report went on to say that the “investigation established that several individuals affiliated with the Trump Campaign lied to [Mueller’s team] and to Congress, about their interactions with Russian-affiliated individuals and related matters. Those lies materially impaired the investigation of Russian election interference.” Far from vindicating Trump, the Mueller report leaves plenty of troubling questions unresolved for Congress and the press to investigate. Above all, the report shows that the Russians interfered in the election to help Trump win, and Trump was happy for the help.

RS: "insufficient evidence" is different from "no evidence."

Associated Press, in May 2019: This refrain about the Mueller report stating there was no collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign is wrong Associated Press in June 2019: Allegations of “collusion” were not “proven false” in the Mueller investigation, nor was the issue of “collusion” addressed in the report. The Mueller report said the investigation did not find a criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia, saying it had not collected sufficient evidence “to establish” or sustain criminal charges. The report noted that some Trump campaign officials had declined to testify under the 5th Amendment or had provided false or incomplete testimony, making it difficult to get a complete picture of what happened during the 2016 campaign. The special counsel wrote that he “cannot rule out the possibility” that unavailable information could have cast a different light on the investigation’s findings. The report also makes clear the investigation did not assess whether “collusion” occurred because it is not a legal term. The investigation found multiple contacts between the Trump campaign and Russia, and the report said it established that “the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts. CNN in May 2019: Volume I of Mueller's report does not say there was "no collusion" or "no evidence" of collusion. The conclusions were more nuanced than that. As Mueller explained on Wednesday, the investigation found "insufficient evidence" to charge a conspiracy with Russia. In his new conference, Mueller said out loud what was carefully written in his sweeping report: "The first volume of the report details numerous efforts emanating from Russia to influence the election. This volume includes a discussion of the Trump campaign's response to this activity, as well as our conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy." Obviously, "insufficient evidence" is different from "no evidence." To be crystal clear, the investigation did not establish a criminal conspiracy between Trump aides and the Kremlin. But Trump is whitewashing the collusion-related evidence that Mueller documented in Volume I. The special counsel found "multiple links" between Trump's campaign and Russian agents. He found that top people in Trump's orbit were "receptive" to offers of Russian help with the election. And he found that the campaign "expected it would benefit electorally" from illegal Russian interference.

Starship.paint, my response to your selection of RS follows:

1. Politico Magazine - the article is authored by Renato Mariotti who is a Democrat, and a political pundit.
2. NYTimes article - [Barr's https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/01/us/politics/william-barr-testimony.html rebuttal], and another opposing view by [3] Andrew C. McCarthy, all of which belong in this article, not just a one-sided POV. And there is also this diff about a "very sloppy New York Times article."
3. WaPo article - see above NYTimes explanation. As for omissions, it all depends on one's perspective.
4. New Yorker - ...in 2012, when it endorsed Obama over Mitt Romney,[26] and in 2016, when it endorsed Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump.
5. The Intercept - Politico writes: In 2016, Intercept reporter Juan Thompson was fired from the site for fabricating quotes and sources, and he was later convicted for making bomb threats to Jewish community centers. The Intercept has also been embarrassed even on its supposed area of expertise; its mishandling of leaked documents helped get a source, whistleblower Reality Winner, thrown in prison. They also favor the progressive left.
   

We are supposed to apply NPOV when choosing the sources we cite, and I must have overlooked where our PAGs say we can choose only those sources that favor our own POV. Please provide the wikilink to that policy or guideline because I'm unable to find it. I don't see any reason to respond to your second collapsed explanation because as I've said before, in the US, a person is innocent until proven guilty, and when there is insufficient evidence to substantiate guilt, that person is considered innocent. End of discussion. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 04:29, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Atsme:, so your response is to attack the sources. Very well. Let me again provide [4] Robert Mueller's letter to William Barr on March 27, 2019, which stated: The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office's work and conclusions. We communicated that concern to the Department on the morning of March 25. There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. What say you to this? As for your response to my second section, you said no evidence earlier, and now changed to insufficient evidence - that's not the same - and that's my point. starship.paint (talk) 06:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: If Atsme says "end of discussion", my suggestion is to jump at the chance. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:10, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

There is also Mueller confirming that Barr's memo was not inaccurate.[5] It's easy to pick and choose facts people like. Also keep it classy Mandruss. PackMecEng (talk) 16:15, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

• NO CHANGE - Choice 2, and move to CLOSE. Opening up what seems ad hoc revotes of every single line every single month has grown tedious. At the very least, procedurally this should TALK over concerns and not just jump into pitching ‘here is my version’ up/down votes. State a compelling motivation for yet again revisiting something THAT HAS NOT CHANGED, and/or User:ZiplineWhy please Please PLEASE self-close and stop this one. Markbassett (talk) 21:53, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

  OP has explained why this modification is proposed. "Move to CLOSE" -- wtf? Are you proposing a roll call vote? What? I move to CHILL. SPECIFICO talk 22:17, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

  Zip stated what concerns ZIP thinks needs address and ZIP proposal about them ... should have done TALK to see if those were general concerns not presume such, or see if other concerns are out there, or if there are better ideas for addressing things. This would have been a good content to bring up back THEN, as PART of a thread, but no we don’t want each individual inputs as individual threads up/down votes, for N users. We should guide Zip to better ways of interacting at this article. So yes, I request Zip self-close before it goes further. Alternatively, we recognise this is not a fully baked discussion and RFC so state “No change to the Lead will be allowed by this, it is not a decision consensus but just a straw poll for now.” Or would you rather Atsme gets to start a thread because he had concern 10 that Zip didn’t mention, and he has an alternative ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:32, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

What? I think everyone here is fine with this being the final discussion for now. The only reason it is being revisited is that we screwed up the original, and some editors felt like it was a substantial enough change that it needed to be confirmed on talk. ZiplineWhy (talk) 23:16, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Nope. We have obviously Zips concerns and only Zips concerns, with no consensus on which if any are DUE attention. It’s just one editors WP:OR, with those individual fillips put as the priority and ignoring WEIGHT. Atsme obviously has other concerns. So have lots of folks. Shall I start a thread of my proposal and declare ‘everyone fine with it’ when half the respondents are definitely not? Tsk. Consensus of one is not the way to go. Put out an honest call for concerns, ping at least 12 editors previously involved, and then THEIR concerns are perhaps worth calling a consensus. For example, go in order of the most covered and important part, first that Russian interference happened, second that Trumps campaign was not found involved, and third that potential Obstruction to the investigation was detailed. “Insufficient evidence” is misleading, weaselling back to insinuate collaboration still might be there, a Conspiracy theory. And leading with ‘welcoming’ let alone ‘encouraging’ has neither WEIGHT nor practical sense... as if Russia really cared or was affected? That’s just back to the implausibility of ‘collusion’. Markbassett (talk) 04:51, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

should have done TALK to see if those were general concerns not presume such What? We should have a discussion to find out if there is enough interest for a discussion? Mark, honestly I think you should leave process to the rest of us; I'm afraid it isn't your forte.

This particular content is important enough that it merits perhaps more flogging than we're accustomed to at this article. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:44, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Mandruss - if proceeding is done with only Zips concerns considered and only Zips approach to them as an option, it not only feels rigged but it also means 5 minutes later I have precedent to start a thread with only MY concerns for the line and only MY approach in for a vote. And then 10 minutes later a thread with only Snoogans heartaches and notional remedy, and then 15 minutes later someone else.... Nonononono ... if It doesn’t discuss the line and deal with all known concerns of editors present, then it’s only a fragmentary discussion and not a consensus for what the line should be. Reducing the scope of points and the range of options also reduces the authority of the result. Cheers and p.s. you KNOW that 5 minutes after this thread concludes there WILL be a new thread reopening the line for other concerns... Markbassett (talk) 19:46, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Choice 1 is vastly preferable for all the reasons given. (BTW, it seems that [6] would be the more suitable reference for reason 1, but in any case the point is amply supported by RS.)

Besides, the current article version (choice 2) violates basic writing principles by talking about "the foreign interference" without ever previously explaining what this refers to. I get it that this easy to overlook for people like most of us here who are already very familiar with the context, but don't forget that there are thousands of people every day who hear about this kind of thing for the very first time in their lives. Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:01, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

• Choice 3 the focal point of the report was that there was no collusion or coordination, so that should be the main wording. Putting Trump's potential encouragement first in the sentence is a little misleading. Mr Ernie (talk) 11:21, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

  @Mr Ernie:, according to the Associated Press, in May 2019: This refrain about the Mueller report stating there was no collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign is wrong For more RS, please read the contents of the second light green box I posted above on “insufficient evidence”. starship.paint (talk) 01:16, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

  Starship.paint, Allegations of “collusion” were not “proven false” in the Mueller investigation - see Argument from ignorance or Burden of proof (philosophy). The Mueller report said the investigation did not find a criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia - why is this not the end of the story? Everyone alleged for years they had evidence Trump had conspired with Russia. That conspiracy theory was not supported by Mueller. The special counsel wrote that he “cannot rule out the possibility” that unavailable information could have cast a different light on the investigation’s findings. - it would be preposterous for us to rely on "unavailable information" for any sort of proceeding. A lot of people got this story wrong for a long time; it is time to finally start putting it right. Mr Ernie (talk) 07:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

  @Mr Ernie: - it is the end of the story, but we must tell it correctly. There is a subtle difference between Mueller did not establish that coordination occurred (accurate) and Mueller established that no coordination ever occurred (inaccurate). The difference stems from this: Volume 1, Page 10 The investigation did not always yield admissible information or testimony, or a complete picture of the activities undertaken by subjects of the investigation. Given that a complete picture never appeared, it is impossible to conclude the latter statement. starship.paint (talk) 09:09, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

  The reverse is also true...many in the media and government claimed for years there was collusion or coordination, but it turns out there wasn't enough evidence available to support it. Normally we would rightfully call that a conspiracy theory. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:19, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

  But Ernie, there was collusion and coordination. Just not conspiracy, maybe. Who knows, maybe Pence or Roger Stone will flip? SPECIFICO talk 20:59, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, the claims can be viewed as a conspiracy theory, but as you sort of acknowledge, that is not the mainstream view now? Perhaps, "conspiracy theory" is one for the historians to debate down the line. Meanwhile, I will reserve my support for the fragment did not find sufficient evidence to establish criminal charges related to conspiracy or coordination with Russia. starship.paint (talk) 13:45, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

• User:Mr Ernie is correct that to have the potential encouragement first in the sentence is inappropriate. Emphasising a hypothetical speculation above the focal purpose and actual results of the report is UNDUE, and reinforces an impression of a partisan article or WP:BIASED sources that are not attributed. (It may be that most sources on this topic are biased...). Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:35, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - I think the best choice is somewhere between choice 1 and choice 2. Choice 2 does not give the reader enough context. Choice one gives too much prominence to a fact that is important, but not the most important for a summary in the lead. I would like to see something that speaks to the fact the Mueller started with the premise that a sitting president can't be indicted. There should also be some mention that Russian election interference is happening again. [7].- MrX 🖋 10:41, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

This was my feeling as well. Leaning toward 1, with the caveat and minor modification addressing this. Symmachus Auxiliar0us (talk) 14:58, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Something among the lines of: "Due to sitting DOJ regulations that a sitting president can not be indicted, Mueller found ten possible cases of obstruction and neither exonerated or accused the president of a crime." sound alright? It could always be modified in the future.ZiplineWhy (talk) 21:38, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

If we use that, I think the "exonerated" part doesn't follow from the "due to". Only the "not accused" part. For example, Mueller affirmed there was insufficient evidence to charge him on "conspiracy", the DOJ policy notwithstanding. SPECIFICO talk 21:44, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

"Mueller found ten possible cases of obstruction, and neither exonerated or accused the president due to sitting DOJ regulations that a sitting president can not be indicted." Something among these lines?ZiplineWhy (talk) 13:45, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

And, if not for that premise, an ordinary defendant would have been deposed or questioned in court -- an circumstance which, according to Trump's team, would have led to him incriminating himself. SPECIFICO talk 15:10, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

• Choice 1 is much better and includes important context. We should also mention collusion (or some synonym), as it happened on a massive scale. I mention this in the "Discussion" section below. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:12, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Your suggestion dangerously gets into the realm of original research and speculation. Although historians may come to a consensus about the situation in the future, it is best to restrict the lead explicitly to what the Mueller report said. ZiplineWhy (talk) 21:43, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

• Option 1: addresses the issues identified by the OP. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:39, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

• Option 3 Appears most accurate and appropriate. While still covering the most important aspects of the result of the investigation. PackMecEng (talk) 16:07, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

  It's inaccurate per the report, Mueller himself, and other reliable sources. It is never stated by Mueller or the report that there was "no evidence" of collusion. In fact, Mueller stated that the report showed that Trump and his campaign "welcomed and encouraged" Russian interference in the 2016 campaign. ZiplineWhy (talk) 14:57, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• 1 or 2 are close enough that I won’t pick one. I’m firmly opposed to 3, which I have already argued against in more detail above. starship.paint (talk) 00:39, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

An explanation of terms is needed here, because there is a careless abuse of them above, which also reveals ignorance or refusal to believe what RS tell us.

The comments which jumped out at me that need to be rebutted are these:

Markbassett: "That’s just back to the implausibility of ‘collusion’."

Mr Ernie: "...many in the media and government claimed for years there was collusion or coordination, but it turns out there wasn't enough evidence available to support it. Normally we would rightfully call that a conspiracy theory."

• Conspiracy: A real legal term. Mueller dealt with it and could not prove a formal agreement (either written or verbal) between the Trump campaign and the Russians. (It's also unrealistic to expect that such a formal agreement ever existed. Those who do wrong avoid leaving such evidence.)
• Coordination: Mueller used "coordination" as if it was a synonym for "conspiracy", so the above applies.
• Collusion: The Mueller Report lists plenty of evidence of collusion between campaign members and Russians, and they kept it secret and lied about it myriad times. There was a regular maintenance of contacts, with planning and exchanges of information, enough to alarm EIGHT allied intelligence agencies, which, beginning in 2015, reported their findings of these secret contacts to the CIA and FBI.

No conspiracy or coordination was proven (even though it might have happened), but there was lots of collusion.

So Mark and Mr Ernie, please stop it with the denials that there was collusion, regardless of what synonyms you use for it. It happened on a massive scale, and RS and the Mueller Report document it. It is not "implausible". The conspiracy theory is the one pushed by Trump, that he and his campaign didn't collude with the Russians in their successful efforts to help him win.

Also, we deal with the term "collusion" far too little in the article, especially since it was a reality. It needs better coverage. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

• Conspiracy Theory - A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by sinister and powerful actors, often political in motivation, when other explanations are more probable. (Face it, after serious looking there is no conspiracy and 'collusion' just was never very plausible anyway. Why on earth would Putin coordinate with Trump ? HOW on earth is Trump to have been at all involved with the cited Russian Interference of hacks and social media campaigns ? ) Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:10, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

• Markbassett, thanks for a good laugh. Yes, I know the definition. We don't know that Trump and Putin ever "coordinated" anything. They have others who do that kind of thing. They had a common interest in electing Trump because he would disrupt the order of democratic republics, help Putin make Russia great again, and let Putin dictate American foreign policy. That is what we're witnessing. The motivation is certainly still there, hence their secret meetings (nothing gets out) and why Trump never criticizes Putin. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:26, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

• BTW, there is a fourth "C" after Conspiracy, Coordination, and Collusion, and that is Cooperation. That word fits exactly what happened in 2015-2016 and continues to happen every time that Trump agrees with Putin that the Russians didn't interfere, denies that they interfered, or that his campaign didn't welcome and aid that interference (that's "cooperation"). It may not be criminal, but it's certainly unpatriotic and wrong. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:47, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

• BTW, Mueller found no ‘aid that interference’ either, and definitely no Cooperation (‘groups or organisms working together’) as that would have been conspiracy of interference with the election. Trumps not in the room with the hackers cracking passwords, and he’s not in the room with the social media group attacks. He’s not getting to tell Putin what to do or being told by Putin when the attackers are doing and what. You seem conflating 2015-2016 election interference with post-election 2017-2018 Trump behaviour. It definitely is not criminal, and the article should not by WP:BLPCRIME be stating or making it appear as if there is. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:12, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

"Remember this: Mueller uncovered a vast Russian conspiracy that pulled off something the Watergate burglars never could. Russians or their allies successfully stole information from Democratic Party officials that was used to bolster conspiracy theories that eventually cost the Democratic nominee the election. Mueller also discovered that Trump knew about this conspiracy, encouraged it publicly, and attempted to get involved but apparently failed —probably because the Russians concluded he was unreliable, and involving him was more trouble than it was worth. Mueller also discovered that Trump conducted a lengthy campaign to cover up the Russian conspiracy, resulting in a list of 10 incidents that, if Trump were not protected by his office, could result in federal charges of obstruction of justice.

"Just because the Mueller investigation is over doesn't mean Trump's efforts to cover up for Vladimir Putin's campaign against democracy have ended. On the contrary, the obstruction of justice campaign has expanded. Now, under the guidance of Barr, it's being run by the Department of Justice itself."[8]

That sums up the factual narrative found in RS quite well. Anything else is a lie and cover-up, and that "anything else" is what we find from Fox News talking heads (not their best News people) and on all the right-wing media machine of unreliable sources, the only ones Trump doesn't label "fake news" because they make him look good and refuse to tell the truth about what he's been doing. That's why they are considered unreliable sources. They don't tell the truth, and they promote false narratives that are contrary to proven facts. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:11, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

• User:BullRangifer Annnd again, holding on to Collusion delusion despite years of nothing in allll the searching and spouting of similarly certain proclamations, somehow still fantasizing and stating them as if facts .... Kind of nice to see hope springs eternal but really just give it up as debunked. The language 'insufficient evidence' is a legalese meaning 'there isn't a case'. This perhaps it isn't the "complete and total exoneration" that Mr Trump is claiming. When it comes to the language used in these type of investigations, however, it's as close as it going to get. Enough, the Mueller madness was 2017-2018 and shouldn't be saying it as if it should be taken seriously any longer. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:39, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

• See above. "Cooperation", and lying about it, describes what happened. That is proven. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:47, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

To make sure we're on the same page - Democrats believed Trump conspired (colluded) with Russia and their belief was based on a theory they formulated that also involved election interference - but no evidence of Trump collusion materialized; therefore, for 2 years the Democrats promoted a conspiracy theory against Trump; one that was not proven by the Mueller investigation and still lives on. The take-away is simply that (according to Vox) Democrats think Trump’s conduct is bad (though maybe not bad enough for impeachment), and Republicans think the whole thing is no big deal. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:04, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Atsme, we all love you, but I don't think anyone's on your same page. There have been dozens of discussions of the differences among Conspiracy, Collusion, Cooperation, Coordination Collaboration Welcoming (hospitality biz term) etc. etc. SPECIFICO talk 21:26, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, being loved is all that really matters anyway. 😊 Forgot to add this link and Collusion. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:47, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, we do love you, but conspiracy and collusion were treated differently by Mueller, as explained above. Conspiracy was not proven, and collusion occurred on a large scale. Those are the facts regardless of party. Neither one is a patriotic act. Both involve unpatriotic collaboration with en enemy power to subvert our democracy. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:00, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Excellent! Collusion: "Collusion is a secret cooperation or deceitful agreement in order to deceive others, although not necessarily illegal, as a conspiracy." That describes exactly what the Trump campaign did. They had over 100 secret meetings with Russian assets, hid it and lied about it. They knew what they were doing was wrong. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:02, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

"GIULIANI: Collusion is not a crime. Everything that's been released so far shows the president to be absolutely innocent. He didn't do anything wrong." No, even if collusion isn't necessarily illegal (it can be), it can be wrong, and the election interference was indeed wrong. Trump is not innocent. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:04, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Conspiracy describes what the Trump campaign did, except that the formal "agreement" part was not proven. The actions still fit what happened: "A conspiracy is a secret plan or agreement between persons (called conspirers or conspirators) for an unlawful or harmful purpose, such as murder or treason, especially with political motivation, while keeping their agreement secret from the public or from other people affected by it. In a political sense, conspiracy refers to a group of people united in the goal of usurping, altering or overthrowing an established political power." -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:09, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Conspiracy against the United States, specifically. X1\ (talk) 00:04, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Atsme, you've got it exactly right. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:13, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Quoting from the report "the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election iterference activities." I'll take Mr. Mueller's word for it, not yours. Additionally Mr. Durham is currently investigating those intelligence agencies to determine if they acted improperly in reseraching and then reporting their findings to the FBI. It was announced yesterday that Mr. Durham has expanded his investigation into a criminal one. Let's see what he finds. I like you Bull but some of the things you are convinced are true are not backed up by any evidence. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:13, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Actually, our article must reflect what reliable sources say about the Mueller Report, rather than the report itself. And as for the Durham investigation, I think we can all agree it is little more than a disgusting perversion of the normally impartial Department of Justice by an Attorney General disgracing himself and his department. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:15, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I don’t agree with that at all. Durham, like Mueller, has a stellar reputation. Don’t attack him because you’re afraid of what he will find. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:46, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

What's he "investigating"? (according to what RS?) SPECIFICO talk 13:58, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

SPECIFICO - NPR and NYTimes for starters. Does anyone know if a new article was started about this investigation? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:46, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Atsme, it is not an investigation. NPOV: It's something he calls an investigation. SPECIFICO talk 20:53, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

@Mr Ernie: I didn't attack Durham. I attacked Bill Barr for allowing Trump to politicize the Justice Department and for behaving like Trump's personal lawyer instead of representing the American people. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:07, 25 October 2019 (UTC

This seems like a violation of WP: CrystalBall, regardless. It has no significance for the article's body or lead as it currently stands. ZiplineWhy (talk) 15:41, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL only applies to articles, not talk pages. Speculation in articles in only permitted if it forms the prevailing view in a preponderance of reliable sources. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:35, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm aware. But I assumed that people meant that we should add that he "colluded" with Russia in the lead. ZiplineWhy (talk) 20:13, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

That shouldn't be added to the lead. Though I don't understand why it was thought people meant that or how Durham now being a criminal investigation led to that thought. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:25, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Sources

Trump's Ireland visit and $100 thousand tab

Hi all

Not sure which article/s this should be mentioned in, any suggestions? https://www.businessinsider.my/trump-ireland-resort-100000-security-bill-2019-10/?

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 11:49, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

User:John Cummings None I think, it’s trivia. And please don’t just paste something from same-day feed here, give it a 48 hour waiting period to see if more info and WEIGHT to show up or if it’s just a 1-day blip. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:06, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Also, in the future, please shorten your subtopic titles. Thanks---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:13, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

@John Cummings and Steve Quinn:This items is way more than trivia,it is just another episode in a behavioral pattern and the Business Insider is a very reputable RS. So this definitely bears mention. I would say along with all of the other people and communities he has stiffed, Like the cities where he holds rallies. For instance El Paso sent a bill for $500,000 to his campaign seeking compensation for police protection and city services they had to provide and they haven't been paid, the same goes for every other city in which he holds his emotional support rallies.Oldperson (talk) 00:34, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

@Oldperson: Thanks for bringing this up. I'm sure it belongs in one of the Trump articles - not sure which one. Also, it is best to allow controversy and hub bub to have traction over the a couple of days, so more details can come out. Maybe someone else will provide a pointer to which article for you. Best of luck. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:53, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Steve QuinnYour after the fact edit (re: Oldperson) did not work. I never got the ping. I did catch it on my watchlist though.... :}. I disagree with giving it a day or two to see if it has traction. The fact is that this is another example of the blatant grift in which he has consistently encouraged or directed. There should be a section devoted to "Misuse of Public Funds", Pence in Ireland, use of the military to keep alive the airport that services his golf course and of course forcing the aircrews to use his facilities, expenses which military per diem reimbursement does not cover. or similar including tax payer funding of events at Mara Lago.. Not to mention another section about Frauds and Scams then there is the violation of the emoluments clause using his Hotel.Oldperson (talk) 02:43, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Survey and discussion

Over at the Trump-Ukraine talk page there is a survey and discussion about lead paragraph proposals. For all who are interested, the discussion is here. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Relevance

I tagged a one liner about Trump being scouted by professional baseball. I think that is a hoax, that it appears in an article is not proof of anything, Trump had the custom of calling up radio stations and newspapers using pseudonyms like John Barron and bragging on himself. I doubt that any baseball team would have scouted him, or that he is that good. This needs to be verified by the teams themselves.Oldperson (talk) 00:34, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Additionally the story has all the smell about of his lover (his words not mine) Kim Jong UnOldperson (talk) 00:51, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

By the way, all those stories about the cancer cure, the unicorn, the golf score etc are distortions. They are not real North Korean propaganda.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:35, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Template:Jack Upland You, of course, can support your statement, that these are distortions by RS. BTW I do not think that North Korea would publish this stuff as propaganda, on the other hand what stories they spread amongst the masses is another thing. it is after all a closed society and it's captive inhabitants have no acccess to outside information or sources.Oldperson (talk) 15:27, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Jack Upland I think the above was meant to ping you. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:27, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Trump Foundation No Longer Active

The first sentence of Section 2.5 currently states, "The Donald J. Trump Foundation is a U.S. based private foundation..."

This should be changed to "The Donald J. Trump Foundation was a U.S. based private foundation..."

This edit will make the first sentence agree with the body of the section and also the discrete Wikipedia entry for the now defunct Trump Organization.

Thank youJackcrossen (talk) 10:05, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with this edit Clint.jenkins (talk) 14:49, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Edit made. Markbassett (talk) 21:21, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Dismissal of James Comey & Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi

Why is this on par with general matters such as Foreign & Domestic policies? Also, how about including "He also ordered the military operation that resulted in the death of Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi." --2A02:1205:5005:440:C508:D886:6D8A:18B9 (talk) 20:00, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Huh?Oldperson (talk) 20:54, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Both of those are part of Trump's domestic and foreign policy. This doesn't make sense. Mgasparin (talk) 20:29, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

What doesn't make sense is the sectionheader and the IP's statement that follows. I assume that Mgasparin's comment above is a question (there was no question mark so sounds like a statement i.e."This doesn't make sense." Anyway James Comey is one topic,so is Domestic affairs, Foreign affairs is another section, al Baghdadi another they don't belong together. I asked "Huh" because I didn't understand the IP's comment, and still don't.Oldperson (talk) 20:39, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't responding to you, I was responding to the IP. If I was responding to you I would have indented my response one indent more than your comment. As you can see, here I am responding to you because my response is indented 3 times. Mgasparin (talk) 20:42, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

State of Residency Now Florida

The NY Times has reported that Mr. Trump has changed his legal state of residency from New York to Florida (a state with no personal income tax or inheritance tax).[9] Not sure if that has made it into the article but if not, I am guessing it should. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:20, 1 November 2019 (UTC)