Talk:Donald Trump

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Former good article nomineeDonald Trump was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
In the news Article milestones
June 2, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
February 12, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
September 18, 2016Good article nomineeNot listed
May 25, 2017Good article nomineeNot listed
December 2, 2018Good article nomineeNot listed
July 15, 2019Good article nomineeNot listed
August 31, 2019Featured article candidateNot promoted
In the news News items involving this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on June 12, 2018, and November 9, 2018.
Current status: Former good article nominee

Highlighted open discussions[edit]

Current consensus[edit]

NOTE: Reverts to consensus as listed here do not count against the 1RR limit, per Remedy instructions and exemptions, above. It is recommended to link to this list in your edit summary when reverting, as [[Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensus]], item [n]. To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to purge this page.

01. Use the official White House portrait as the infobox image. (link 1, link 2, link 3) (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" in the infobox. No state or country. (link 1, link 2)

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

04. Obsolete
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. (link 1, link 2) (superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)

05. Use Donald Trump's net worth evaluation and matching rankings, from the Forbes annual list of billionaires (currently the March 2019 edition, $3.1B/715th/259th), not from monthly or "live" estimates. (link 1) In the lead section, just write: Forbes estimates his net worth to be $3.1 billion. (link 2, link 3)

06. Do not include allegations of sexual misconduct in the lead section. (link 1, link 2)

07. Superseded by #35
Include "Many of his public statements were controversial or false." in the lead. (link 1, link 2, wording shortened per link 3, upheld with link 4) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019)

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

09. Include a link to Trump's Twitter account in the "External links" section. (link)

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. (link 1, link 2)

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." (link 1, link 2, link 3, link 4, link 5, link 6) (superseded by #17 since 2 April 2017)

12. The article title is Donald Trump, not Donald J. Trump. (link 1, link 2)

13. Auto-archival is set for discussions with no replies for 7 days, manual archival is allowed for closed discussions after 24 hours. (link)

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

15. Cancelled
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 has been restored, with minor adjustments to past tense.Special:Diff/764846021 No new changes should be applied without debate. (link 1, link 2, link 3, link 4) In particular, there is no consensus to include any wording akin to "losing the popular vote". (link 5) (cancelled by local consensus on 26 May 2017 and lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017)
16. Cancelled
Do not mention Russian influence on the presidential election in the lead section. (link) (cancelled by lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017)

17. 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}}. (link 1, link 2, link 3, link 4, link 5, link 6, link 7) Amended by lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017 and removal of inauguration date on 4 July 2018. Lower-case "p" in "president" per link 7 and this October 2017 RFC.

18. The "Alma mater" infobox entry shows "The Wharton School (B.S.inEcon.)", does not mention Fordham University. (link 1, link 2)

19. Obsolete
Following deletion of Trump's official White House portrait for copyright reasons, it was replaced by File:Donald Trump Pentagon 2017.jpg. (link 1 for replacement, link 2, link 3, link 4 for background) (replaced by White House official public-domain portrait according to #1 since 31 October 2017)

20. Mention protests in the lead section with this exact wording: His election and policies have sparked numerous protests. (link 1, link 2)

21. Superseded by #39
Omit any opinions about Trump's psychology held by mental health academics or professionals who have not examined him. (link 1, link 2) (superseded by #36 on 18 June 2019, then by #39 since 20 August 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. (link)

23. 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. (link 1, link 2, link 3, link 4, link 5) Wording updated on 6 July 2018 (link 6) and 23 September 2018 (link 7).

24. Superseded by #30
Do not include allegations of racism in the lead. (link) (superseded by #30 since 16 August 2018)

25. Do not add web archives to cited sources which are not dead. (link 1, link 2)

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". (link)

27. State that Trump falsely claimed that Hillary Clinton started the Barack Obama birther rumors. (link 1, link 2)

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. (link 1, link 2)

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

30. The lead includes: "Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist." (link 1, link 2, link 3)

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

32. Omit from the lead the fact that Trump is the first sitting U.S. president to meet with a North Korean supreme leader. (link 1, link 2)

33. Do not mention "birtherism" in the lead section. (link)

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

35. 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. (link)

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. (link 1) (paragraph removed per followup RfC 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. (link)

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

39. Do not include any paragraph regarding Trump's mental health. (link)

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. (link)

RfC: books in lead[edit]

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)

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

Survey for books in lead[edit]

  • 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 (equally weighted). 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)
  • 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)

Discussion for books in lead[edit]

Notifying previous commenters:

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)

Whistleblower Shenanigans?[edit]

It's recently been reported that the whistleblower form was rewritten mere days or at most weeks before the current controversy to allow hearsay complaints. Given said complaint is exclusively hearsay material shouldn't this be noteworthy? Who authorised the change and when it was finalised is still TBD but we're dealing with a very short timeframe. The current text treats the complaint allegation of a pressure campaign as gospel, and yet we don't even know if we can trust the document! 人族 (talk) 05:08, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

We should start by looking at your sources. Please list a few of the more compelling ones. I don't know what "hearsay complaint" means. - MrX 🖋 09:30, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Hearsay, as in the complainant details what he or she was allegedly told but has no personal direct knowledge. In a legal trial their testimony would almost certainly be excluded. Since this is a political trial the rules differ. As for a source noting that form was rewritten shortly before the complaint, try: It's not the only site noting the issue but is probably the best one. Fox News for instance has a clip here: where the matter is referenced but it doesn't cover it to the same level of detail. The information is only a day or so old so more pieces with further information may come out in the next few days. The significance of this information will likely depend on the role\significance of the whistleblower complaint in this article. 人族 (talk) 10:10, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
With any luck, we will not be covering the controversy at that level of detail in this article. This is not the place for point-by-point analysis. We're looking for lasting effects on Trump's life and presidential legacy, not detailed explanation of how we arrived at those effects. ―Mandruss  10:39, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Mandruss about the level of detail/analysis in this article. We can only afford to summarize the big picture. I would add that Trump's lawyer will never, ever be a reliable source for anything. Also, the whistleblower complaint is a complaint, not testimony in a trial, so the concept of hearsay is merely a partisan talking point intended to distract from the reality of the situation. The whistleblower complaint is a roadmap for where to get evidence and witness depositions which, by the way, is happening.[2]- MrX 🖋 10:51, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Seems a detail more suited for a dedicated article like Trump-Ukraine controversy. And it should have a 48 hour waiting period for whatever WEIGHT and responses to show up. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 13:39, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Three points: 1) The last paragraph in the lead, "In September 2019, following a whistleblower complaint alleging..." gives undue weight to a recent event. There should be very little if anything about impeachment in the lead (and that probably in a context of continuing efforts to impeach) until/unless he's actually impeached. 2) The section on impeachment is too long and too detailed for what is supposed to be a biographic encyclopedia article. 3) It seems to me that the last couple of years have shown that it's better to give things some time to develop rather than jump on the current Trump crisis of the day. Tom Harrison Talk 14:29, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

That story came out yesterday. Others have not yet had a chance to dispute it, except on twitter. And it wouldn't belong here anyway. soibangla (talk) 18:18, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

人族, see: soibangla (talk) 00:23, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Soibangla, the lesson, as always, is to wait for nonpartisan sources. Don't rely on The Federalist or Fox News for facts. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:31, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
To be fair, the Fox video was Trump's lawyer on a talk program hosted by a Trump propagandist.[3] - MrX 🖋 10:55, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Muboshgu, the problem is there are no non-partisan sources, only sources a particular side considers non-partisan. The Left hold their sources to be non-partisan, the Right hold their sources to be non-partisan, and the middle is a myth. Feel free to suggest sources you consider non-partisan but if you consider Fox and the Federalist partisan (Fox falls close to the middle), odds are most of the sources you recommend will be ones that those I mainly communicate with laugh about as highly partisan. 人族 (talk)
人族, if you don't consider Fox News to be a partisan source, we're not likely to agree on anything. "Middle"? Only in relation to OANN and Breitbart. "Non-partisan" sources include WaPo, NYT, CNN, and all the other standard sources that the right says are in the tank for Democrats. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:28, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Muboshgu, My apologies about the belated response. I don't visit Wikipedia on a regular basis and when I visit I rarely think to check messages. Never heard of OANN so can't comment on them. WaPO, NYT and Clinton News Network as non-partisan sources? RoFL. I don't think any American I know would treat that as anything other than a furphy. No that's not true, there's one or two Leftists that would accept them as sources, but whether that's because they consider them acceptably partisan or actually non-partisan I couldn't speculate. If it helps I do periodically read the NYT but they're so far in the tank that it's not funny. It shouldn't be called the Gray Lady but the Blue Lady! This difference of opinion though perfectly illustrates Wikipedia's problem - there are next to no sources that Regressives and Conservatives will agree are reasonable and each side has fundamentally different views regarding the facts of various matters. Yes I understand that facts shouldn't be in dispute, but these days truth and facts have become relative. 人族 (talk) 00:06, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
人族, "Clinton News Network"? They did devote lots of time to manufactured Benghazi and email "scandals". Their bias is corporate, not partisan. The New York Times meanwhile was breathlessly pumping up Giuliani's manufactured Ukraine bullshit, which has backfired. You seem to be too deep in the right wing bubble to recognize what is and is not biased. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:23, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't want to be rude or disrespectful of another editor, but my sides ache over the comment that (Fox falls close to the middle). Fox has been GOP TV, ever since Murdoch hired Ailes. The network lost about 110 million a year for 5 years, until it got up and running. Murdoch has an ultra conservative agenda, as any Brit who can watch Sky or reads the Sun. the Times and Sun Times. Murdoch is typed as a populist. A broad description, as Trump and even Hitler and Mussolini were populists. There is populism of the right (oligarchs, corporations) and populists of the left (labor, the common man).Oldperson (talk) 22:38, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
@人族: - please watch this video and tell me again that Fox falls close to the middle. starship.paint (talk) 00:10, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
If you're talking about pundits, I don't know of any network that is not partisan, do you? Atsme Talk 📧 04:16, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
(1) False equivalency (2) Evidence? starship.paint (talk) 00:24, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Starship.paint, thanks but I pretty much steer clear of Twitter. And if the address refers to NowThisNews, then you're talking about something by an ultra-regressive quasi news site i.e. something with zero credibility. 人族 (talk) 00:06, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
@人族: - here's a YouTube link [4]. Trust me, the video is from NowThisNews, but every single word you hear will be from Fox News. Here's another video on a similar subject. [5] Just 10 minutes of your time. starship.paint (talk) 02:45, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Additions of alleged abuses of power into Biden[edit]

I find parts of the lead to be conflicting and inaccurate:

"According to the testimony of multiple White House officials, this was part of a widespread ongoing campaign and cover-up to illegally advance Trump's personal and political interests by abusing the power of the presidency. On October 3, 2019, Trump then openly pressed China to begin a criminal investigation of Biden, after he previously told them that he has "tremendous power" and "lots of options" if they "don't do what we want.""

As the lead reads currently: " this was part of a widespread ongoing campaign and cover-up to illegally advance Trump's personal and political interests by abusing the power of the presidency. "

From the Trump–Ukraine controversy: "The whistleblower also alleged that the call was part of a wider campaign by Trump, his administration and Giuliani to pressure Ukraine into investigating the Bidens, which may have included Trump cancelling a scheduled trip to Ukraine by Vice President Mike Pence, and Trump withholding financial aid to Ukraine."[1][2][3]

This is an allegation, yet on the lead, it reads off as if this is confirmed. This is inconsistent.

On China, this is how the lead currently reads: "On October 3, 2019, Trump then openly pressed China to begin a criminal investigation of Biden, after he previously told them that he has "tremendous power" and "lots of options" if they "don't do what we want.""

Trump did not "press" China into investigating Biden. "Likewise, China should start an investigation into the Bidens because what happened in China is just about as bad as what happened with Ukraine." - Verbatim what Trump stated.[1][2][3] This is not a "push" for China to investigate Biden; moreso of a general comment. The ""tremendous power" and "lots of options" if they "don't do what we want."" is fine. As it stands, I find the lead to not be following WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE.


  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Balsamo-190926 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cohen, Marshall; Polantz, Katelyn; Shortell, David (September 26, 2019). "Whistleblower says White House tried to cover up Trump's abuse of power". CNN. Retrieved September 26, 2019.
  3. ^ Olorunnipa, Toluse; Parker, Ashley (September 27, 2019). "Pence seeks to dodge impeachment spotlight as his Ukrainian moves attract notice". The Washington Post. Retrieved October 1, 2019.

Any suggestions/comments to improve the lead? Aviartm (talk) 20:34, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Trump personally confirmed all the allegations in a rambling, unhinged rant to the media today. The article is accurate. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:52, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
@Aviartm: The Lead paragraph you're referencing has been changing pretty rapidly and the discussion here hasn't caught up yet. Currently the most active discussion about that is above at #Sentence_about_the_Ukraine/Biden_controversy. But while people in that section are talking about modest 1-2 sentence proposals, the paragraph in the Lead is currently at 4. Here are some sample edits from the last 3 days.
I'm not sure how to best address this, but I think it would be helpful to try and get people on the same page about what needs to be in the Lead. What's there right now is a bit rough, much of it added today without input from any other editors, but I hope things will get cleaned up quickly with the number regular editors we have here. ~Awilley (talk) 23:00, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Factoid: The lead of this first-level bio has grown by 36% in the past six days. ―Mandruss  23:08, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

The lede is expanding because significant stuff is happening... let’s exercise patience with editors on this, alright? I may try trimming it though later today. starship.paint (talk) 00:15, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

In September 2019, the U.S. House of Representatives initiated a formal impeachment inquiry against Trump regarding alleged abuses of power for personal political purposes, including if Trump conducted a pressure campaign on Ukraine to investigate fellow 2020 presidential candidate Joe Biden and his son. In October 2019, right after discussing that the U.S. has "tremendous power" in the trade war with China "if they don't do what we want", Trump publicly urged Ukraine and China to investigate the Bidens.

starship.paint (talk) 00:45, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't disagree with the desire to keep the introduction paragraphs short, but a complex scandal such as this makes it almost impossible to contextualize in a non-misleading and adequate manner. Initially I thought that your revised version was superior to the one already in the lead, but I realized that it reduces the fact that Trump repeatedly pressured/pressed China's and Ukraine's government into a mere allegation, even though both (at least Ukraine) have all been basically confirmed by the President himself at this point. (at the very least, "repeatedly pressured and/or pressed") It also seems to lead the viewer into implicitly assuming/believing that Trump's statement about having "tremendous power" was exclusively about the trade war, when the actual transcript/video has him seem to apply those words in a much more broad sense. (Or at least disputable/murky one) The current version removes any potential bias by simply reporting that Trump brought up the notion after uttering those words. (Admittedly, this is going to be hard to do in a way that keeps it short and everyone satisfied) With the new apparent revelation of further calls and an increasingly likely months long inquiry, (this time with China's Xi about Biden... and maybe Waren) I'd argue that it needs expanded... if anything. I'm open ears if you have any suggestions, but I fail to really see how the current lead violates the conditions of WP: NPOV. ZiplineWhy (talk) 02:33, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
For the lead of this first-level bio, the following would be non-misleading and adequate:

In September 2019, the U.S. House of Representatives initiated a formal impeachment inquiry against Trump regarding alleged abuses of power for personal political purposes.

More detail below the lead in this article, and in the lead of the Presidency article. Yet more detail below the lead of the Presidency article. Not to mention the multiple other sub-articles. ―Mandruss  02:48, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

In September 2019, the U.S. House of Representatives launched a formal impeachment inquiry against Trump after he revealed that he had abused his presidential power for personal political purposes.

That's even clearer. Agree about the details going in the body and the links. SPECIFICO talk 02:56, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
That's too strong in my opinion. Sure, he revealed many things, but whether that is abuse of power up to interpretation. starship.paint (talk) 05:33, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
The investigation is currently based on abuse of power and a cover-up. In my view, both of those allegations need to be included in the lead. Of course, once he is impeached, there may be other charges. - MrX 🖋 11:49, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Exclude tidbit-du-jour from lead Enough running amok with LEAD. The Chinese remark doesn't belong in the lead. It shouldn't even be going into the article. He's threw an odd remark to reporters that China should do something - that doesn't mean anything, hasn't had any impact and doesn't meet WP:LEAD of being much of the article. Just give it a 48 hour waiting period and see if anything actual comes of that or if any real WEIGHT develops, or at least someone out there figures out 'investigate him about WHAT'. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:06, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
A president asking China to interfere in an election by investigating a major presidential rival, while embroiled in an impeachment inquiry, is not what I would characterize as a tidbit. Your claim that it doesn't mean anything is contrary to what reliable sources report.[6][7][8] - MrX 🖋 11:55, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
@MarkBassett: "Threw an odd remark to reporters" is an astonishing way to describe an abuse of power. This "doubling down" on the abuse of power outlined by the whistleblower was the top story on every major network, including FOX. Clearly Trump's strategy is not to defend the abuse of power, but rather it is to make the abuse of power so blatant that it normalizes it. So instead of an "odd remark" it is a second abuse of power calculated to lessen the impact of the first. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:29, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

─────── At this point, Mandruss's version (reminder: In September 2019, the U.S. House of Representatives initiated a formal impeachment inquiry against Trump regarding alleged abuses of power for personal political purposes.) is superior in every respect. The lead is meant to be a summary of the article. Consequently, all we need to say is that a formal impeachment inquiry has been started because Trump has abused his position. The detail of those abuses (including the "doubling down") should be left to the body of the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:23, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

You may have a point about keeping this short in the lead, but I'm struck by the inconsistency in that approach in similar articles Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton. I also think that the amount of detail in the lead of should be roughly about the same for special counsel investigation and the impeachment. I think this version accomplishes that fairly gracefully. I'm not inclined to support a super-short version at this time.- MrX 🖋 18:20, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Read the conversations. The current lead, after additions, is much better. I agree with Markbassett on that the China comment should not really be on there. A simple remark of little notice/prominence should not be coupled with some that is, even if it is related. Thank you Awilley for notifying about where the conversation on this matter is headed. I knew my inquiry would be quickly regarded because it's the lead and much regarding all of this is still happening and new things are being known. Aviartm (talk) 23:05, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
As I said before, the utter nonsense that Trump's comments about China were "a simple remark of little notice/prominence" isn't going to fly here. It was the top story on every single news network in the USA, and prominently featured in news networks around the world. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:15, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
@Aviartm: - Trump privately asking a foreign leader to investigate an electoral opponent was deemed unprecedented. What do you think Trump publicly asking two countries is then? starship.paint (talk) 02:20, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Starship.paint I agree, it was bad timing really. However, the China comment is so weak in prominence compared to Ukraine's. And as thoroughly discussed before, "Likewise, China should start an investigation into the Bidens because what happened in China is just about as bad as what happened with Ukraine." - this compared to the transcript of the phone call, there is no comparison. Nonetheless, we should abstain from applying conclusions harshly until there is more concrete verdicts from the inquiry. Scjessey We shouldn't conduct Wikipedia on the mere basis of Appeal to Popularity. As I have stated, the prominence of that comment to Ukraine remarks is incomparable. Of course it should be mentioned but nothing should be conclusive. The best route to go about mentioning China is Trump's exact words. Aviartm (talk) 03:31, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
@Aviartm: - the U.S. and China are engaged in a trade war with tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars of goods. That is the key here. Something very significant is hanging in the balance. starship.paint (talk) 06:58, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Starship.paint I do not deny the possibility but it is not Wikipedia's job of speculating implications. Aviartm (talk) 02:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Aviartm - it is not our job, but what we are looking out for is whether the sources say it's significant. starship.paint (talk) 04:46, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
User:Starship.paint Trump publicly speaking to reporters wishing China to investigate is just talking to reporters. Speculations exist that it was just to continue portraying such as normal. In any case, we should not put in LEAD the story du jour. There’s a new story du jour every single day. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:54, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
@Markbassett: - just to continue portraying such as normal implies that what Trump doing is abnormal, yet you also write that it is just talking to reporters, as if it was normal. That doesn't make sense, unless talking to reporters turn abnormal things into normal things. starship.paint (talk) 06:58, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
@MarkBassett: "Trump publicly speaking to reporters wishing China to investigate is just talking to reporters." What the hell does this even mean? The primary way an administration communicates with the world is through the White House press corps and anything said to reporters is an official statement. Trump threatened China with "tremendous power" and then suggested the Chinese should investigate the Bidens immediately afterward, implying the two things were related. It defies logic that you should think these China comments were trivial. These comments alone would bring down any other presidency. I can't even. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:30, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
User:Scjessey EXCLUDE TIDBIT-DU-JOUR FROM LEAD. The “Just talking to reporters” means “talking to reporters and no more to the story at that time”. Stories should NOT be posted to lead instantly, with no content, and for this article the lead changes should also be TALKed before post. Look - the report was about him coming over to the press and giving this unofficial one-liner to reporters - just that and no more. Not about him talking to State department, not about a conversation with any actual representative of China, nothing delivered, no detailed accusation stated, no actual investigations, no events other than “just talking to reporters”. We’ve nothing much about a nothingburger with less than a day coverage and that folks are putting it in BLP LEAD is WP being ridiculous and casts a disreputable Tabloid odor on the article. If I had tuppence for every bit of blather a politician said, I’d have quite a pile of clink. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:00, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
@MarkBassett: If this is really your response, and you're not just "making game of me" as they used to say, I can no longer regard you as a serious contributor to this article. The comments to reporters themselves WERE the actual story, not anything that may or not have happened in connection with what he said. Have you not watched any political TV since he said it, on any channel? This will be my last response to this absurd attempt by you to downplay a textbook impeachable offense. We're just totally done here, my friend. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:52, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
User:Scjessey we seem to be in violent agreement that the story is he made comments that day, and nothing more. Factually what it is seems a 3-day flap, second day description being medium reflection that Trump was ‘stirring the pot’ and then not much. This simply had not shown sufficient WEIGHT nor actual content per WP:LEAD on day 1 to deserve consideration for Lead. And now it seems unless some remote likelihood like the Chinese respond, we can see that it as finished out to be low WEIGHT, with no enduring impact. Media has moved on to further whistleblowers and side tidbits. Right wing has gotten past that Biden got paid to curry favor and (since no direct quid pro quo) moved on to remembering Obama era also did inquiries of Ukrainian and Australian or that Barr and Trump long ago said they’d take foreign info. Left wing has gotten past a phone call happened and moved on to second whistleblower or polling showing growth of impeachment sentiments in House & public. (Plus a lot of opinion pieces.) That Trump said some empty wish that China would investigate - just not a big deal in the competition according to how RS are voting with their front pages today. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:26, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@Markbassett:The man is POTUS, the most powerful man, so they say, in the world.There is no such thing as "just talking to reporters", not when such "talk" can affect the stockmarket, the world economy, world piece, start wars, cause consternation by world leaders, and heads of government. etc.Oldperson (talk)

Stock market, world economy, and the politics are purely a matter of perspective. Atsme Talk 📧 18:29, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
User:Oldperson So are you proposing changing the article to credit him entirely with the last 2+ years in stock market plus economy then? Really, this seemed a lot of posturing about his importance that I don’t think is the experts views. Now as to WP policy and facts in hand. The walking over and making a wishful expression to reporters lacked WEIGHT and had little article content on the morning of so did not deserve LEAD. I saw no BLP significance in hand and no demonstrated enduring impact. Just a lot of speculatively proclaimed outrage... which also lacked novelty. It still lacks all those, and has shrunk in coverage rather than growing. In article there is a couple lines instead of a mention during trade talks. How can there be any doubt the wish to reporters does not deserve LEAD ? ??? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:50, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
{{ping}Markbassett|Atsme}}To quote your beloved hero "You talking to me?" I have no idea what you are talking about, apparently you are responding to the post immediately above by Atsme, by echoing his statement, claiming responsibility for the world economy,much less the Obama recovery. Fact is that Trump's ridiculous tweets have caused the stock market to bounce up and down. But the average American who works for a living is uninterested in the stock market, that is the gambling area/playground of the people who have benefited from Trumps tax cut, which is not us (my taxes went up because of Trump, I lost my interest deduction on my mortgage for one thing..just so he, his family, friends and financial base could save a few million dollars(as if they don't have enough already..greed has no limits). He makes much about the job numbers, but he and the so called "liberal" media totally ignore that the jobs being created are low paying service workers(15 an hour or less and $15 an hour is not enough to live on these days(rent, food, clothing,transportation,utilities). I fail to understand the mentality of people who vote for and bend over backwards to support and conman and grifter who does not have any interest at heart except his own.Oldperson (talk) 03:13, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
@Oldperson: Calling your fellow editor a sockpuppet for Trump is a personal attack. Please strike your statement and be more respectful in the future. — JFG talk 06:59, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Done. I was merely thinking WP:DUCK Oldperson (talk) 10:54, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
User:Oldperson thanks for undoing ‘sock puppet’. Now back to article content discussion... re your 7 October post above - your prior post put forward, without evidence, that “just talking to reporters” of POTUS can have effects to stock market, economy, world piece, etcetera. For this event that’s a rather WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim, one contrary to WP generally not giving him the credit for the much longer large improvements in the stock market or unemployment (because experts generally do not give any POTUS such), and is voiced as a potential not as actual tied to this event. Look, there generally isn’t such importance assigned to the 3 Oct talk to reporters, it doesn’t have WEIGHT, it hasn’t had real BLP effect or enduring impact, and it doesn’t have lots of article content — it just doesn’t have anything in WP policy or guidelines to support LEAD prominence. I think it has now been resolved that way in article and removed from LEAD, so we can move on to something else. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 12:07, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Markbassett You seem to forget that this is a talk page, and unlike the article all mentions need not be referenced. As a matter of fact my statement is true. All one has to do is watch the evening news or read through the NYT and WaPo. As regards Trumps helicopter talks with threats of war and tariffs they certainly do have an effect onthe stock market. Problem is that only a handful of people, the wealthy, are invested in and watch the stock market. I don't and I live very well, however there are legions of references but since this is not the article page, it is hardly worth my time digging them up. Nobody I know cares about the stock market, but I know lots of folk whose income is not keeping up with prices, especially the elderly whose purchasing power is constantly slipping. Anyway I remind you that this is a talk page, not the article and everything does not need to be referenced, if so then you need to go back and do a lot of work and cough up citations for your statements. As regards alleging that you are a sock puppet, one can't help but come to the conclusion that those who bend over backwards, ignore facts, logic, reason are sock puppets for the RNC, Trump or simply blind loyalists. Especially when they come up with specious arguments, irrelevancies, what about isms and the like. One can't help but wonder. My error was in musing aloud.Oldperson (talk) 16:27, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Time to make a decision and not get sidetracked by all this noise and bullshit. Mandruss's version (In September 2019, the U.S. House of Representatives initiated a formal impeachment inquiry against Trump regarding alleged abuses of power for personal political purposes.) seems like the way to go. Let the body of the article get into specifics, but this is better than the version that is currently in the lead. Are we all agreed? -- Scjessey (talk) 12:55, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. First, the impeachment inquiry is not "formal" as long as it has not been voted on. Second, we can't remain so vague about those serious accusations against Trump; we must explain briefly what he is alleged to have done that is considered an impeachable offense. The current version in the lead strikes the right balance. — JFG talk 13:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
No matter how much we say there, we will always leave something important unsaid, something requiring the reader to read beyond the lead if they seek understanding beyond headline level. For example, the lead currently says he was investigated for obstruction of justice. It offers not a hint about what he did that is alleged to be obstruction of justice. I'm not buying the assertion that we can omit that level of detail but the next higher level of detail is essential in the lead. ―Mandruss  17:20, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
I agree with JFG. The two sentences in the lead are necessary and sufficient give the underlying complexity of the situation. I'm sorry Mandruss and Scjessey, but Mandruss' version is too short. Perhaps we should have a poll to decide between he two contending versions? - MrX 🖋 17:57, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

In September 2019, the U.S. House of Representatives launched an impeachment inquiry to investigate Trump's alleged abuses of power and obstruction of justice.

Detail should be in the body text. Who knows, maybe it will blow over? SPECIFICO talk 19:46, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
I could support that, too. Then, if there is an impeachment, the inquiry becomes unleadworthy and the sentence is replaced by a new one. Then, if there is a conviction (hah!), the impeachment becomes unleadworthy and the sentence is replaced by a new one (oh hell, I guess removal from office would merit two sentences). In all cases, "For more information, use the table of contents to jump to the section of interest to you" is implied and self-evident.
I oppose putting first the information needs of readers who read the lead and leave. They should not be our primary target audience. ―Mandruss  21:18, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I support SPECIFICO's proposal as well. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:59, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
No. Again, that's too vague. To Mandruss' point, I believe that readers of the lead section are an important target audience (yet obviously not the only audience), especially for long and complex articles such as this one. — JFG talk 08:50, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
I agree with JFG. Also, the lead is very important. When asking Alexa a question, the response is typically read verbatim from the lead of a WP article. It is important that we present an accurate summary and not mislead or leave hanging by ommission. Atsme Talk 📧 06:58, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Article: Conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump?[edit]

Since there is "Category:Conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump" referencing twelve articles, maybe we should have a "Conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump" article. Yes, yet another Trump article!

I believe it is warranted by Trump's known affinity for conspiracy theories, including recent ones that are of significant consequence and deserve to be expounded upon at length, such as:

Beginning in 2017, President Donald Trump and his allies — based largely on speculation on internet message boards and repeated across conservative media — promoted multiple threads of unfounded allegations that by 2019 had merged into a sprawling conspiracy theory centered on Ukraine. Trump had long felt that the findings of the American intelligence community and the Mueller Report that the Russian government had interfered in the 2016 election to benefit him had undermined the legitimacy of his election as president. He and his allies — most notably his personal attorney Rudy Giuliani — promoted an alternative narrative that the Ukrainian government had interfered to benefit Hillary Clinton, in coordination with Democrats, the digital forensics company CrowdStrike and the FBI, alleging the Russian government had been framed. Trump falsely asserted that CrowdStrike, an American company, was actually owned by a wealthy Ukrainian oligarch, and the conspiracy theory claimed the company had planted evidence on the Democratic National Committee server to implicate Russia, while asserting the FBI had failed to take possession of the server to verify that claim. Although the FBI did not take possession of the server, CrowdStrike had provided the FBI with an image of the server to conduct its own analysis, which led the Mueller Report to concur with the intelligence community that the server had been hacked by Russian intelligence. Trump also asserted without evidence that Ukraine was in possession of the DNC server, as well as Hillary Clinton's deleted emails. The conspiracy theory later evolved to include baseless allegations of corruption by Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden in their activities in Ukraine. This led Trump to pressure Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky to open an investigation into the matters, which triggered the Trump-Ukraine controversy, which in turn led to the opening of an impeachment inquiry into Trump. His staff had repeatedly attempted to persuade Trump that the conspiracy theory had no merit, including his former homeland security advisor Tom Bossert, who later remarked, "the DNC server and that conspiracy theory has got to go. If he continues to focus on that white whale, it’s going to bring him down."

In a parallel effort, Trump directed attorney general Bill Barr to "investigate the investigators" who supposedly opened the FBI investigation into Russian interference for partisan political motives to harm Trump, including with alleged assistance from allied intelligence services. That investigation led to the Mueller investigation, resulting in convictions of some Trump campaign associates. In September 2019 it was reported that Barr has been contacting foreign governments to ask for help in this inquiry. He personally traveled to the United Kingdom and Italy to seek information, and at Barr's request Trump phoned the prime minister of Australia to request his cooperation. Barr sought information related to a conspiracy theory that had circulated among Trump allies in conservative media claiming that Joseph Mifsud was a Western intelligence operative who was allegedly directed to entrap Trump campaign advisor George Papadopoulos in order to establish a false predicate for the FBI to open its investigation. That investigation was initiated after the Australian government notified American authorities that its diplomat Alexander Downer had a chance encounter with Papadopoulos, who boasted about possible access to Hillary Clinton emails supposedly held by the Russian government. On October 2, 2019, Senator Lindsey Graham, a staunch Trump supporter and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, wrote a letter to the leaders of Britain, Australia and Italy, asserting as fact that both Mifsud and Downer had been directed to contact Papadopoulos. Joe Hockey, the Australian ambassador to the United States, sharply rejected Graham's characterization of Downer.[1] [2][3] A former Italian government official told The Washington Post in October 2019 that during a meeting the previous month, Italian intelligence services told Barr they had "no connections, no activities, no interference" in the matter. American law enforcement believes Mifsud is connected to Russian intelligence.


  1. ^ Horowitz, Jason. "Trump Impeachment Inquiry". New York Times. New York Times. Retrieved 6 October 2019.
  2. ^ Graham, Lindsey. "Letter from Judiciary Committee" (PDF). United States Senate. Senate Judiciary Committee. Retrieved 6 October 2019.
  3. ^ Hockey, Joe. "Australia's response to Lindsey Graham". Twitter. Retrieved 6 October 2019.

Also see:

soibangla (talk) 01:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Far too tenuous. I'm all for splitting the content about Donald Trump over multiple articles, but we already have an article about the truthfulness of his remarks. For the conspiracy theories themselves, they can be explained in their own articles. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:01, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Don't see the point of discussing here, if you want to create an article just do it - perhaps draft and publish, then the discussion will come at WP:AFD. starship.paint (talk) 02:06, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
@Markbassett:Trump is full of conspiracy theories, one of hisfavorite means of deflection (projection) project onto others what he is guilty of. However I know of no conspiracy theories about Trump. To date he personally validates about everything said about him,in front of Marine 1 or at photo ops..Oldperson (talk)
@Oldperson: - just saying, editors posted collusion delusion and debunked Trump-Russia conspiracy theory on this very page. starship.paint (talk) 02:43, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Starship.paint Hmm tough one...I was thinking more conspiracy theory as small items of Pizzagate level absurdity and uncommon belief like ‘Trump is a time traveller’ or such. The “collusion delusion” is a derisive term for what was factually a common (false) area, more an article or category itself. Yes, now it may seem silly enough to be in the realm of conspiracy theory. In any case, neither of these seem right for this article TALK unless we’re proposing removal of specific content from here to an article. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 11:30, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
@Markbassett: .I was thinking more conspiracy theory as small items of Pizzagate level absurdity and uncommon belief like ‘Trump is a time traveller’ or such. - ??? Trump is a time traveler??????? You've got to be joking me. By the way, you need the User: in the link to ping. starship.paint (talk) 14:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
@Starship.paint and Markbassett:I know nothing about any "collusion delusion" except that the only persons who mentioned collusion was Trump (first) then his cult followers. Nobody on the left has mentioned the word except to quote Trumpand his cult.

And where did you (Mark) come up with whacko "Time Traveller". I've never heard such a thing, or any such. Then again I don't do Twitter, Facebook or any social media as those are not RS,and (especially not is GOP TV aka Fox News and Fox and Friends or Fox lite (CNN), in fact most of the MSM is not a RS in as much as they are owned by a handful of corporations whose motive is profit, as Thom Hartmann calls it "Infotainment", you see only the news that they want you to see,and nothing that could cause damage to their profitability or existence. Best I can do is pull facts and ignore the pundits and talkersOldperson (talk) 15:40, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Starship.paint umm, at least a few different tabloid bits came from Democratic congresspeople talking “collusion”. If you haven’t seen right-wing derisive about “collusion delusion” or “witch-hunt” or “fake news”, you can find lots, and lots, and lots of it. In general I recommend delete from here any bizarre tabloid bits like mentions of him being Hitler, his being a werewolf love-child, secret messages in various kinds, that he via Epstein raped a 13-year old, that he’s anti-Semitic, that Wisconsin votes were hacked, that he did a climate-change website purge, that a MLK bust was removed from the White House, that Trump photoshopped bigger hands, etcetera. I could hope they were all just jokes, but gob-smacked as you may be, it seems some folks believe this stuff. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:25, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
@Markbassett: - your pings aren't working because you're doing it wrong. That you would equate and group werewolf love-child with climate-change website purge smacks of massive ignorance. Here are the sources on the purge Guardian, NYT, and Time. Where are your sources stating that the reports of the purge as bizarre tabloid bits? If you can't provide these, I must really question your judgment on what constitutes bizarre tabloid bits. starship.paint (talk) 03:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
User:Starship.paint Well Conspiracy theory being a catch all for absurd stories positing conspiracies and uncommon belief... If you’re convinced climate-change website purge is too commonly believed, perhaps ‘common myths’ or ‘fake news’ or ‘manufactured outrage’ might seem a better fit of it’s category. It seemed a clickbait or sensationalist title about fairly routine shifting old webpages to the historical section phrased as a conspiracy. That the website changes when the Presidency changes should hardly be surprising - it changes even during an administration. That anyone expected Trump to keep it just from ‘new broom’ effect, or given his campaign positions, or that editing a WH website is somehow secret kind of hit me as the mentioned “Pizzagate level absurdity and uncommon belief”. It at least seemed not commonly believable to me - but ehh, people maybe believe surprising things. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:36, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
@Markbassett: - I asked you to provide sources. You failed to do so. Your argument is kind of a false equivalency. You argue that such things are routine. The sources disagree. Time Christine Todd Whitman, the EPA Administrator under George W. Bush, says the overhaul is “to such an extreme degree that [it] undermines the credibility of the site”. You essentially continue to defend your grouping of fantasies regarding time-traveller Trump, werewolf-child Trump with climate change website purge - to which, I can only remind you that Wikipedia:Competence is required, especially in controversial topics such as this. starship.paint (talk) 01:56, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
I’m glad someone finally brought up WP:CIR. I don’t begrudge anyone of any political persuasion, but I think there are pretty obvious clear substantive issues in this case. There’s only so much rope you extend. I’m hoping it can be dealt with here, rather than WP:ANI. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 18:45, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
User:Starship.paint but of course not, as the subthread here is (perhaps you’ve forgotten as we’re deeply indented) a discussion about whether the proposed article conspiracy theory from Trump maybe mandates a matching article Conspiracy theories from or about Trump or a joint article ... and I suggested no article but instead category(ies) and exclude any such from this article. I then mentioned a number of such for illustration. Am I to read your request for cites as implying no objection to the large points of this conclusion about the topic (I.e. EXCLUDE ANY CONSPIRACY THEORY) and my general description ‘Pizzagate level absurdity and uncommon belief’, so just now wanting cites explicitly about that one ? And is your concern that ‘climate-change website purge’ does not fit as too commonly believed so belongs to another category, or what ? You’re seem going in two directions here and not clarifying what you’re looking for or why. Markbassett (talk) 05:33, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
@Markbassett: - I do not object to an article about Conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump, because the sources have written about it. On the other hand, I am not aware of many significant Conspiracy theories about Donald Trump. Thus I object to Conspiracy theories from or about Donald Trump. starship.paint (talk) 06:58, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
@Mark Bassett: Could you please clarify for me. Does this statement of yours (above)" If you’re convinced climate-change website purge is too commonly believed, perhaps ‘common myths’ or ‘fake news’ or ‘manufactured outrage’ might seem a better fit of it’s category mean that you categorize global climate change as a common myth or fake news? I think we need a discussion of fake news, what is and isn't.Oldperson (talk) 02:08, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
User:Oldperson whether ‘climate-change website purge’ is too commonly believed relates to whether it fit my informal description of conspiracy theory as “Pizzagate-level absurdity and uncommon belief”. The phrase ‘Global climate change’ is a different topic, definitely not uncommon and a mix of - or contributor to ? — several other categories. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:42, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Starship.paint Mark I literally do not understand what you are saying above. Please be more clear and up front. I take it from your posts on the subject that you do not believe that Trump has ordered the purging of the words Climate Change from any official documents, if so it is not a matter of common belief but of facts. It is not a conspiracy theory it is a documented fact..Oldperson (talk) 15:55, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
User:Oldperson - ‘climate change website purge’ was described above — it was a false portrayal about some conspiracy or secret moves in the WH website. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:04, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Template:Markbassett What is false about the facts that the administration has purged his administration of people (and use) of the worlds "climate change". Those are facts, not theories. As regards conspiracy theories. To date the only conspiracy theories that are hitting the airwaves are those being perpetuated by Trump. Trump apparently makes most of his moves in public, probably as a tactic misbelieving that if it is done in public it is not a conspiracy or illegal.Oldperson (talk) 22:15, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Starship paintIf a conspiracy is carried out in the open,what do you callit?I am referring to climate change purge. Climate change purge is an actual fact here are to RS Donald Trump using Stalinist Tactics to discredit Climate Science and /2019/mar/20/donald-trump-stalinist-techniques-climate-science Trump officials deleting mentions of ‘climate change’ from U.S. Geological Survey press releases These are just two RS, Conspiracy facts not conspiracy theories.Oldperson (talk) 22:35, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
In Canada, we call our open secret operation to keep the Industrial Revolution alive and well-off the Venture Capital Action Plan. No gates, everyone is free to watch the sausage made, speculate on its purpose or allege any candidate's involvement in or response to it. We just don't feel we should. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:57, October 10, 2019 (UTC)
User:Oldperson - to ping Starship it is User:Starship.paint - those pings are to me with his label. Otherwise, ahem ... the position that ‘the only conspiracy theories are those perpetuated by Trump’ isn’t at all plausible, and the opinion pieces that’s linking Trump to Stalin (or Hitler) just aren’t usable RS. They are not just WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims, they are tabloid-level Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:29, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
@Markbassett and Starship.paint: Let's see if I got that ping correct. Explain to me, with other than finger waving, why "the only conspiracy theories are those perpetuated by Trump" isn't at all plausible". Actually the only conspiracy theories I have seen or heard are those perpetuated by Trump. So correct me if I am wrong. Things like "Climate change Purge" are not conspiracy theories but RS reported facts. As regards linking Trump to Stalin or Hitler, that my friend is a logical fallacy, a red herring, changing the subject,moving the goal posts. No one,not me not the Guardian has linked Trump to Hitler or Stalin,however the Guardian stated that he was using Stalinist tactics. As regards Hitler, well that was Turkey in WWII. Neither I nor anyone I know has made a Trump Hitler connection. To be honest though I do see some scary similarities between Germany 1933 and today, and I am not the only one.Oldperson (talk) 00:49, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
@Oldperson: - your ping worked. If climate change website purging is carried out in the open, we call it horrible, stupid, anti-science policy ... provided the reliable sources say so. starship.paint (talk) 02:47, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Relevant current not world history[edit]

I object to this reversion by Mandruss This is not world history but important information as a counterpoise to Trumps justification for betraying the Kurds. I wish this to be reinserted.Other aspects of this event are included in the article. I will not get into revert wars. Please discuss: "Trump justified his action by saying that they didn't help us in WWII[1] The Iraq Levies provided Kurds,Yazidis, Iraqi's, Syrians, Christians that served under French and British command during WWII, whereas Turkey was, until 1944, allied with Germany[2]


  1. ^ De You, Ryan, Lamothe, Karen,Missy, Dan (9 October 2019). "Trump downplays U.S. alliance with Syrian Kurds, saying 'they didn't help us in the Second World War'". Washington Post. Retrieved 10 October 2019.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  2. ^ "Allied Powers". Encyclopaedia Britannica. Retrieved 10 October 2019.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldperson (talkcontribs) 21:21, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Combining two distinct sources to form a point is a terrible idea, at least in article space. To do it back here is merely frowned upon. There's no such thing as counterpoise, at least not in those sources; come back with an article tying Nazi Turkey to Dubious Don and you might have some useable dirt. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:13, October 10, 2019 (UTC)
And you shouldn't refer to us in Wikipedia's voice. Trump is absolutely correct about the utter lack of assistance the vast majority of readers and writers received from "them" 75 years ago in Europe. Is that what you want, a world where the American president appears to be publicly telling the truth again? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:22, October 10, 2019 (UTC)
Last nitpick, Trump was talking about the Normandy invasion, which was under American command, so pointing to Kurds under British and French control is a non sequitur. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:28, October 10, 2019 (UTC)
We have an article that is already significantly above the size where our guidance says an article "almost certainly should be divided" (split), despite having already been split twelve ways to Sunday. There is no more splitting that would begin to make sense. We've had complaints about the large file size causing performance issues on some platforms. We've been discussing this literally for years. And yet the problem persists, precisely because editors insist on going into too much detail about political issues, many of which issues needn't be in this top-level biography at all. We have many sub-articles for that kind of detail. Near the top of this page: "Want to add new information about Donald Trump? Most often, it should not go here." – followed by a very incomplete list of sub-articles. That's there for a reason.
#Current consensus #37 represents an attempt to address this issue: "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." I would be interested in hearing how the content in question is likely to have a lasting impact on Trump's life and/or long-term presidential legacy. I don't mean the Kurds–Syria issue in general, but these specific details in particular. That's how #37 should be interpreted if it's to have any beneficial effect at all.
Multiple proposals for easier ways to address the issue have been defeated (remarkably, partly because they were easy), forcing us to laboriously challenge one addition at a time, which I did in this case. ―Mandruss  00:07, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Actually, that's not the way this article has been written over the past 4 years. We start out adding "too much" content, and we revise and trim it as much as possible. So our initial guesses as to what's enduring and what's clarified, disproved, or replaced, are likely to be pretty imperfect. We should not let that stop us from getting a good first version underway or to assume where we'll end up in a week, a month, or a year. SPECIFICO talk 01:03, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
I've asserted that we've been doing it wrong for 4 years, resulting in the persistent size issues, and your rebuttal is that we've been doing it that way for 4 years? ―Mandruss  01:26, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, exactly! I think you've got it. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 01:34, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Disputed Syria lies[edit]

Note: this is related to this revert.

Trump is reported to have stopped supporting Kurdish insurgents because it was wasting money. Saying he did it to allow Turkey to kill them is lying. An anonymous source told Fox Pentagon officials were "blindsided". Pretending it came from those officials, somehow in unison, is a lie. America paid, fed, trained, equipped and directed these Kurds. Saying these Kurds supported American action is a lie.

SPECIFICO thinks differently, so let's learn why. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:20, October 11, 2019 (UTC)

Don't make statements about other editors or characterize other editors' views. SPECIFICO talk 01:09, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Sorry to presume by your reversion of all three corrections. I'll ask next time. Do you think these lies aren't lies, differently from how I do? If so, can you explain how, for the good of the page? Have you read anything in a reliable source indicating your preferred version is true? Would you care to share a quote, or add a citation? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:36, October 11, 2019 (UTC)
  • Suggest NOTHING here for at least a 48 hour waiting period, and the seriously consider putting it at some article more appropriate than his biographic like the Presidency or Foreign affairs. And please stop avoid any copy-paste-paste-paste to multiple articles. Markbassett (talk) 00:37, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
If these lies have spread verbatim, it's worse than I thought. Aren't Trump haters supposed to be against this sort of echoing harmful deception and willingness to ignore inconvenient mainstream conclusions? I'll take nothing over two days of hypocrisy (real or perceived). InedibleHulk (talk) 01:00, October 11, 2019 (UTC)
If anyone needs a diff to better understand how these lies were already corrected and defended, it's at 00:03 on October 11. Can't paste. Someone else can, if it'll help. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:17, October 11, 2019 (UTC)
I've added a note at the top of this section. ~Awilley (talk) 02:41, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

[9] Today, President Donald J. Trump spoke with President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey by telephone. Turkey will soon be moving forward with its long-planned operation into Northern Syria. The United States Armed Forces will not support or be involved in the operation, and United States forces, having defeated the ISIS territorial “Caliphate,” will no longer be in the immediate area. The United States Government has pressed France, Germany, and other European nations, from which many captured ISIS fighters came, to take them back, but they did not want them and refused. The United States will not hold them for what could be many years and great cost to the United States taxpayer. Turkey will now be responsible for all ISIS fighters in the area captured over the past two years in the wake of the defeat of the territorial “Caliphate” by the United States.

Hulk, the White House statement does not mention money at all. It mentions that Turkey is planning an attack. starship.paint (talk) 03:17, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

First footnote, Al Jazeera, cites Trump saying the insurgency was too costly, in money and equipment, for America to keep. Then it quotes the Press Secretary as denying any American cooperation with Turkey in killing its terrorists. No matter who finally cut off American interference, the Turks would've immediately finished what they'd started. It's like when a gambling addiction forces you to let the family pet run free to the whims of fate and natural predators. Domestically, you tell the kids he wasn't that great of a chimp, because remember when he didn't help grandpa fight off those creditors before they were born? Two different fronts, home and abroad. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:50, October 11, 2019 (UTC)

In October 2019, after Trump spoke to Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, the White House acknowledged that Turkey would be carrying out a planned military offensive into northern Syria; as such, U.S. troops in northern Syria were withdrawn from the area to avoid interference with that operation. The statement also passed responsibility for the area's captured ISIS fighters to Turkey.[550] Congress members of both parties denounced the move, including Republican allies of Trump like Senator Lindsey Graham. They argued that the move betrayed the American-allied Kurds, and would benefit ISIS, Russia, Iran and Bashar al-Assad's Syrian regime.[551] Trump defended the move, citing the high cost of supporting the Kurds, and the lack of support from the Kurds in past U.S. wars.[552][553] After the U.S. pullout, Turkey proceeded to attack Kurdish-controlled areas in northeast Syria.[554] - what I wrote. starship.paint (talk) 03:55, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I like it. "Military offensive" may be a tad euphemestic for Wikipedia's voice, but fork it. The important thing is the insane notion that America should continue to support, defend and harbour terrorists after their exemption from the War on Terror expires is attributed to some named sympathizer's online literature. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:17, October 11, 2019 (UTC)

Preferred description for the Mueller report[edit]

What is everyone's preferred description of the Mueller report in the lead? I personally believe that choice one conveys in a much more accurate manner what the Mueller Report says. But a few editors have suggested that it would be too long to include within the lead, so I wanted to come here and establish consensus on the matter. I personally don't see how it could be labeled as such. Thoughts? ZiplineWhy (talk) 00:42, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Choice 1: (Suggested 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.

Choice 2: (Current version) Trump and members of his 2016 campaign were suspected of being complicit in Russian election interference that favored him, but a special counsel investigation did not find sufficient evidence to establish conspiracy or coordination with Russia.


  • Choice 1 Aside from the wording, which might be improved, Choice 1 accurately conveys Mueller's finding. Mueller was acting in the role of a prosecutor, so when he says "not establish" it means he did not have admissible evidence to charge with a crime. But he also went to pains to explain that this was largely due to extensive evasion, obstruction, destruction of evidence, and failure to cooperate with the investigation. And Volume 2 documents numerous incidents of obstruction in detail. SPECIFICO talk
  • 'Added Choice 3 option: "he also went to pains to explain that this was largely due to extensive evasion, obstruction, destruction of evidence, and failure to cooperate with the investigation. And Volume 2 documents numerous incidents of obstruction in detail." Incorporates both Choice 1 and Starships recommendation. Oldperson (talk) 01:12, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
It really is better if you just voice your preference for 1 or 2 and we will work out the details after consensus becomes clear. When editors start adding additional alternatives, the process never converges and the issue becomes less, not more clear. Almost always. Please see whether you can choose one and then add whatever comment you'd like. SPECIFICO talk 01:31, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • EXCLUDE, WRONG ARTICLE FOR IT - As previously discussed and long-standing content consensus was nothing. I think per discussions in archive 96 on Mueller in lead that it’s a Presidency topic and not for his bio. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:35, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't care which. Just include one of them. This topic is WP:DUE for the lede and protects Trump's BLP by asserting that they were not charged on this particular count. starship.paint (talk) 04:08, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Choice 1 accurately characterizes the Mueller Report's findings, and avoids the weasel wordy "were suspected" language. May His Shadow Fall Upon You📧 17:59, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Choice 1 for the reasons stated by "May His Shadow Fall Upon You". Mgasparin (talk) 05:51, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Choice 1 is an improvement over the current version (2). Of course we need to keep the sentence that follows: "Trump was also personally investigated for obstruction of justice, and was neither indicted nor exonerated.".- MrX 🖋 21:19, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Choice 2 --MONGO (talk) 21:35, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Choice 2 sums up the situation better.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:26, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Choice 1 more accurately summarizes the body prose, which is adequately sourced and is not currently contested. "...and was knowingly 'welcomed' by the Trump campaign under the belief that they would politically benefit from the foreign interference." This is a very significant point – not in my irrelevant judgment, but per the body of reliable sources. As always, I'm willing to consider sources that disagree, and, as almost always, nobody brings any let alone enough (I appreciate that, as it makes my job easier). ―Mandruss  00:37, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Choice 2: Starting the paragraph with "A special counsel investigation […]" would put the cart before the horse. Why was there an investigation? Because Russia interfered in the election, and Trump and his campaign were suspected of being complicit in Russia's efforts, so that's what we should state first. Also the proposed wording "the Trump campaign welcomed the foreign interference under the belief that it was politically advantageous" sounds like an incriminating statement, which contradicts the very conclusions of the Mueller Report, namely that no member of the Trump campaign, and indeed no U.S. citizen, willingly helped Russia. The worst "welcoming" that happened was that Trump Jr. took a meeting from a Russian lawyer in the belief that she would deliver politically damaging information on Hillary Clinton, and it turned out that didn't happen. — JFG talk 08:41, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
"which contradicts the very conclusions of the Mueller Report." No. It's a literal quote from the contents of the Mueller Report. "sounds like an incriminating statement,." Why does that prevent it from being included in the lead? Wikipedia isn't either a promotion or attack page. ZiplineWhy (talk) 23:23, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
The quote from the report in that article words choice 1 in the opposite order. Hrodvarsson (talk) 04:15, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
The current version (choice 2) is also lifted directly from Mueller's conclusions:

Although the investigation 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, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

I'm not against mentioning potentially incriminating statements in general, but when the inquiry's conclusion is that the alleged crime was not committed, it would be unfair, and indeed non-neutral, to keep the incriminating statement in our summary of the whole affair. Let's keep it simple. — JFG talk 04:41, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
But we must reflect what the preponderance of reliable sources are saying, not what the Mueller Report says. It would be non-neutral to pretend Trump wasn't gleefully happy that Russia interfered on his behalf. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, indeed. Except for Trump, Barr, and a chorus of parrots, there's been no "conclusion" that a crime was not committed. That statement is either ignorant or dishonest. Editors who've read RS discussion of the Report know this, as do editors who have read the report itself. It's been established at considerable length in prior talk page discussion, and @Starship.paint: posted one of many portions of the report relating to that fact.
Mueller Report quotes
  • Volume 1 Page 2 says we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of “collusion.”
  • Volume 1, Page 10 says The investigation did not always yield admissible information or testimony, or a complete picture of the activities undertaken by subjects of the investigation. Some individuals invoked their Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination ... Some of the information obtained via court process, moreover, was presumptively covered by legal privilege and was screened from investigators by a filter (or “taint”) team. Even when individuals testified or agreed to be interviewed, they sometimes provided information that was false or incomplete, leading to some of the false-statements charges described above. And the Office faced practical limits on its ability to access relevant evidence as well — numerous witnesses and subjects lived abroad, and documents were held outside the United States. Further, the Office learned that some of the individuals we interviewed or whose conduct we investigated — including some associated with the Trump Campaign — deleted relevant communications or communicated during the relevant period using applications that feature encryption or that do not provide for long-term retention of data or communications records. In such cases, the Office was not able to corroborate witness statements through comparison to contemporaneous communications or fully question witnesses about statements that appeared inconsistent with other known facts ... given these identified gaps, the Office cannot rule out the possibility that the unavailable information would shed additional light on (or cast in a new light) the events described in the report.
Option 1 gets us to NPOV with succinct accurate wording that reflects the weight of Reliable Sources.
SPECIFICO talk 13:34, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Choice 1 does a far better job of summarizing what happened per reliable sources. Choice 2 doesn't get to the crux of the matter at all. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:42, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Choice 1 is definitely the better version. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:03, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Choice 2 - closer to factual and accurate. Atsme Talk 📧 06:46, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Choice 1/Request Closure I believe that there is now an adequate consensus to close in favor of #1, so I'm requesting that this discussion be closed. Perhaps we can shortly create another discussion about how it should be optimally worded in a couple of days, as many of the people who chose #2/gave soft support to #1 also suggested revisions. ZiplineWhy (talk) 00:02, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
    It's only been a few days, and we are far from a WP:SNOW case. Please let the discussion unfold for a little longer. Many of the "regular" editors only check in weekly or less often. — JFG talk 16:34, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
    Actually, I think it is pretty clear where this is going from the two-to-one ratio in favor of choice 1. Certainly choice 1 has more than enough support to justify updating the article, and that doesn't preclude minor adjustments later. The version currently in the article is inadequate. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:27, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Choice 2 for the sake of brevity, as that is the main conclusion. Choice 1 worded in the opposite order, as it is in the link ZiplineWhy provided above, would be preferable to the current choice 1, though still lengthy. Hrodvarsson (talk) 04:15, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Would you support a version of #1 provided that the sentence is reordered? (e.g. "...investigation found that Trump and his campaign knowingly welcomed and encouraged Russian foreign interference under the belief that it would be a politically beneficial, but did not bring specific charges for conspiracy or collusion." I'm completely fine with the order of the sentence being rearranged. ZiplineWhy (talk) 22:55, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Russia 2016, Joe Biden, impeachment[edit]

That sensational news is most likely not essential to his overall life and shouldn't be in the introduction segment. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. I don't think it's appropriate to bring up this topic with the alleged Russian interference in the elections. It just sounds like someone wants to focus on his shady actions. I'm not American, so I'm not a Trump supporter, but this is not neutral writing. -- (talk) 00:47, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

There is plenty of content in that lead that is either Trump-neutral or Trump-positive, so your someone wants to focus on his shady actions comment doesn't hold water. As for this is not neutral writing, see Wikipedia's policy on neutrality and don't miss the word "proportionately" in the first sentence. "Neutral" doesn't mean whatever we think it should mean; it is defined with some precision on that page. As for Wikipedia is not a newspaper, I agree that the lead of this article should contain quite a bit less detail about his presidency, but I keep getting outvoted. It certainly should say something about the impeachment potential – that would be historical even if there is no conviction, and it shouldn't wait until we know the ultimate outcome. ―Mandruss  02:02, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
op - in other words, there was prior WP policy that says to cover things in proportion to what’s in press — and the Mainstream media has been been covering extensively, sensationalizing, and 90% negative back to when he was still seeking nomination. We perhaps don’t do great at handling — separating what should go into BLP from the other topics, keeping size down, and recentism issues, but mostly... Your issue is with them, not us. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 12:23, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but the three subjects you've highlighted are essential to covering Trump. pbp 02:11, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Tree of Life Award from Jewish National Fund (JNF)[edit]

Please re-add the Jewish National Fund Tree of Life Award that was removed in edit 919723450. I have located a better reference that I believe meets the requirements of WP:BLPSOURCES, and it is the Haaretz newspaper at . To wit, "In March 1983, Trump, then a relatively young real estate mogul, was the recipient of the prestigious Jewish National Fund Tree of Life Award, which honors individuals and families for their dedication to promoting U.S.-Israel ties and outstanding community work." -- Ingyhere (talk) 08:32, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Courtesy ping MrX. — JFG talk 09:03, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Trump's role in soft core porn and reverts of reverts[edit]

@MrX, Mandruss, SPECIFICO, JFG, and Starship.paint: MrX Reverted my edit about Trump being involved in three soft core porn films.Stating that Daily News was not a RS. I erroneously reverted his revert when I should have taken it to the talk page. so I am here now. Following are two reliable sources.From CNN When Rudy Giuliani said Wednesday that Stormy Daniels has no credibility because she is is a porn star, he neglected to mention that his client, President Donald Trump, has appeared in three Playboy videos that feature nudity and softcore pornographic content. and Cite news|url= Trump once appeared in a softcore porn movie|last=Walker|first=Tim|date=1 October 2016|work=Independent.UK|access-date=13 October 2019. Question: Are these legitimate citations and is my revert of MrX's revert legitimate.Oldperson (talk) 23:34, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

If we mention his appearances in soft porn merely because we consider that a significant part of his biography, that's one thing (while eminently debatable per WP:WEIGHT). But your apparent motive is to call out the Trump camp for yet another instance of hypocritical b.s., and the purpose of this article is not to participate in those petty political battles. For one thing, we don't have the space; for another, they are petty. In this case, you're not even calling out Trump but Giuliani. What's next, calling out Giuliani's dog because some reliable source reported that it crapped on the White House lawn? ―Mandruss  23:47, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm fine with restoring it based on these sources, but I think it should be put into context so that it doesn't seem like Trump was a porn star. - MrX 🖋 23:48, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Eh... doesn’t seem that important? Those were short cameos, he didn’t appear nude, and the models were clothed during his appearances? It would be different if Trump was nude. There’s no need to attack his credibility in this way. Trump’s constant lying does that already. If people still take Trump at his word, that’s on them. And of course Giuliani is wrong, Stormy Daniels might be an adult film star, but she is more credible than Trump (and also more credible than Giuliani). starship.paint (talk) 00:05, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
At first, I supported the insertion (ahem), but reading the sources, the recent mentions of this fact are indeed about Giuliani's argument. Trump's cameo appearances in a few Playboy videos are not significant enough for his main biography; they are mentioned in Filmography of Donald Trump. — JFG talk 00:27, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Oh, yes they should be added in filmography. Very good, correctly inserted. starship.paint (talk) 00:32, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
@Starship.paint, MrX, and Mandruss:My purpose is irrelevant, and no one but me can guess as to my purpose. But I will say this. History is best served by truth,and that means painting in all of the wrinkles and flaws. This is true of all be he a George Washington, a Lincoln, an Obama, A Reagan or Trump. This has nothing to do with Guiliiani, but takes off from a Guiliani statement. That the POTUS participated in a soft core porn film is very important, as is his sexual "misadventures" and perversions "If she wasn't my daughter I would do her". The man represents the nation, and this is what we have and what people dare to defend. A BLP is not a whitewash, nor is it a scandal sheet, the bad demands recognition along with the good.This entry is especially cogent considering that his so called base considers themselves "family value" Christian evangelicalsOldperson (talk) 01:04, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
@Oldperson: - I don't see anything bad in his participation (likewise, Stormy was earning an honest living). This isn't sexual misconduct. starship.paint (talk) 01:55, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Starship.paintAgreed. I don't look at it as bad, but as episodic as any other event in his life to which encyclopediaists enumerate. It is as worthy of mention as his obtaining a merit medal from one of his sycophants.Oldperson (talk) 02:02, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
There is far more "truth" about Trump than could ever fit in this article – which is already too large as I've argued elsewhere on this page – so we obviously have to draw a line somewhere and omit lots of "truth". I draw the line somewhere before inclusion of this content. As Trump "truth" goes, this is relatively minor. ―Mandruss  02:07, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

If the following meetsWP:WEIGHT requirements sufficient to merit inclusion then so does his participation in softcore porn films. "n 1983, Trump received the Jewish National Fund Tree of Life Award, after he helped fund the building of two playgrounds, a park, and a reservoir in Israel.[749][750][751] In 1986, he received the Ellis Island Medal of Honor in recognition of "patriotism, tolerance, brotherhood and diversity",[752] and in 1995 was awarded the President's Medal from the Freedoms Foundation for his support of youth programs.[753] He received a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame in 2007,[754] and was inducted in the WWE Hall of Fame in 2013.Let's not have double standards please. BTW the Freedoms Foundation funded in part by the Charles Koch Foundation and is aggressive in tactics to dismantle unions. So freedom from representation in the workplaceOldperson (talk) 02:18, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't find whataboutism useful. If you want to challenge that other content, go ahead, but don't link it to this content. Others are free to differ. ―Mandruss  02:24, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
There is plenty excess to cut. BTW that is a different organization w. The Koch Bro.s SPECIFICO talk 02:34, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Leave it out. It has far less lasting value than Jimmy's - who cares? It would serve a far better purpose in the Daily Mail or Brietbart, not in this encyclopedia. Atsme Talk 📧 02:50, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Trump once conspired with an oily black beefcake in brief trunks to simulate the violent molestation of a morbidly obese and mentally ill Samoan youth to settle a wager with a fellow rich Republican, and you think untopless Playboy can rattle his cage? Have you seen Umaga's bouncing nipples or Lashley's shiny GTA (General Taint Area)? Trump has, and if anything needs sunlight, it's "that garbage", not Heff and Friends. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:48, October 14, 2019 (UTC)
As for the recurrent themes of the protagonist wanting to "know" his daughter, marry his opponent, forget his wife and kill his son, that can come up when Hogan, McMahon and Flair's leads make a stink about the whole Inverted Atomic Oedipus Complex or whatever it's called. It's not like Trump Zumhoffed, Benoited or Gangrelled anyone. If it goes that far, shout it from the rooftops. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:14, October 14, 2019 (UTC)
Quoting one of the models in the CNN report: "I thought he was thoughtful. I thought he was respectful. I had a very good time," said Marks, a registered Democrat who said she is remaining neutral in the presidential election. The claims you're making are WP:EXCEPTIONAL and require multiple high quality RS. WP:DUE applies here as well. It's time to drop the pee tape conspiracy and all the other tabloid gossip. Atsme Talk 📧 06:42, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
If you're talking to me, my sources are in WrestleMania 23. I just "took liberties" with my recollection of this enormous career milestone the lead easily ignores. Huge night for all parties involved, "very decent" Approximate Inflated Attendance, landslide babyface victory. NO URINE! Sad. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:05, October 14, 2019 (UTC)
I think many Republicans have taken part in soft porn, so it's not a big deal.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Seems like all this would be WP being tabloid, instead of serious topics and reputable coverage. Markbassett (talk) 12:55, 14 October 2019 (UTC) @Markbassett, Starship.pant, Mandruss, and Atsme:There are no claims being made.The fact is not WP:EXCEPTIONAL but factual there are multiple reliable sources. The fact that he has starred in soft core porn films is relevant, especially for that portion of his following that describe themselves a evangelical Christians and defenders of family values. But I consider Starships suggestion viable, to include it in filmography, as a matter of fact that is where it was before being reverted. I will reinstate as it is as valid an entry as any other mentions.Objections to it fall under WP:IDONTLIKEITOldperson (talk) 17:21, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@Oldperson: JFG's reference to "filmography" was to the article Donald Trump filmography, clearly evident by his wikilink (which is a redirect to same). It is unclear whether starship was agreeing with that or misunderstood JFG's comment, but in any case you do not have enough support to include that content, so I have reverted you. We don't get to declare opposing arguments invalid and ignore them. ―Mandruss  17:31, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Mandruss Who then does get to pass judgement on arguments? Consensus? Who evaluates consensus. BTW your statement was a red herring. I did not declare any argument invalid.Oldperson (talk) 18:45, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@Oldperson: Aye, there's the rub. In my experience, we either request an uninvolved close or go by the numbers. Uninvolved closers occasionally close against the numbers, not often.
When consensus is sufficiently clear, an involved editor may close, subject to challenge. If you closed this for inclusion, I promise you that you would be vigorously challenged; an involved close for omission would stand a better chance.
I did not declare any argument invalid. I beg to differ. You declared all opposing arguments IDONTLIKEIT, hence invalid. Objections to it fall under WP:IDONTLIKEIT.Mandruss  18:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
There is a difference between declaring an argument invalid or using IDONTLIKEIT. An argument can be totally valid but still "WP:IDONTLIKEIT".(Replacing a vandalized edit)Oldperson (talk) 00:49, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── While it is amazing that the President of the United States has personally been involved in porn videos, it is not at all amazing for Donald Trump. Leave it out per WP:UNDUE. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:26, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Scjesseu If that mention is WP:UNDUE then so is every other mention of his long public career, from awards rendered by the anti-union homophobic Freedom Foundation, to his role in WWE.Oldperson (talk) 18:04, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
The solution is to remove the other fluff, not to add more (no opinion on whether this one belongs) and please note it is Freedoms Foundation, not the other one. This one is a Philadelphia organization and Trump was building his good name among visitors to the Atlantic City resorts around that time. SPECIFICO talk 18:08, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
SPECIFICO I had a better researched response but lost it to a edit conflict.The gist is that the Freedoms Foundation did not award Trump anything. It was in fact the (Evergreen)Freedom Foundation.l I found the source of the confusion, from a trumpgiving website. The headline is Freedom Foundation and in small text below a mistype of Freedoms Foundation The Freedoms Foundation mentions the recipients of its awards, not one mention of Trump however.Oldperson (talk) 19:20, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. Removing the other UNDUE stuff is the way to go; however, it must be done carefully after first winning consensus to do so here. I have noticed a lot of edits to the article over the last few days that should probably have come to the talk page first. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:20, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Probably come to talk page. Yes, but now that this page is no longer under "consensus required", it's just as well to make the cuts and see whether they're challenged. Of course if they are it would really be good to consider all views on talk, but that too is no longer required. Fortunately the editors who lived with "consensus required" for a couple of years tend to act as if it's still on duty. Most of the new American Politics articles have been placed under that one rather than the 24-hour BRD thing. SPECIFICO talk 19:04, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
User:Oldperson Nope, salacious rumored tidbits run counter to BLP, NOTSCANDAL, SENSATIONAL. Doesn’t seem DUEeither. The thinking it will divide him from religious support just seems like saying it’s got partisan political motivations as icing on top. Not reputable content. Markbassett (talk) 18:32, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Markbassett Rxcuse moi, but Trumps involvement in soft core porn is neither salacious, rumored or a tidbit but a documented fact.Oldperson (talk) 19:29, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Is this nonsense really worth discussing at this point. It makes no difference whether it's in, out, or what. SPECIFICO talk 19:04, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
I totally agree considering the real mess that DJT has made of the world, the abetting of ethnic cleansing by his friend Erdogan and what possibly lies ahead for all of us, soft core porn is trivial humanizing entertainment.Oldperson (talk) 19:29, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Disagree. The size problem is the aggregate result of hundreds of little things that are either UNDUE, #37 vios, or otherwise inappropriate in this article. I have proposed a thing or two that would address the size problem at a "macro" level, but they have been defeated, leaving us to address it one seemingly trivial skirmish at a time. That's what we're doing here, and that's what we're going to continue to do for the foreseeable future. ―Mandruss  19:33, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
As in life, economics, and WP editing, "Macro-level" only gets you so far. Better to just start removing the tidbits, news of the day, "honors", failed businesses, etc. and look back at the dozens of lines you've shortened the article. Make some cuts. Worst that happens is somebody disagrees, finds a better source, or thanks you. SPECIFICO talk 20:10, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Put it in..put it in the allegations of sexual misconduct section. 2600:1702:2340:9470:4090:80C6:F187:BB47 (talk) 19:42, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Um, no. But thanks. ―Mandruss  19:44, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Before I revert, justify trimming please[edit]

@Mandruss, JFG, and Starship.paint: Please justify this edit where Mandruss trimmed a current and important edit justifying it with appeal to consensus 37. I don't see it, as it meets none of the requirements established.Oldperson (talk) 17:48, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand. What requirements are you referring to? ―Mandruss  17:50, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
MandrussThe requirements of consensus 37, which you quoted in your edit.Oldperson (talk) 18:04, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
You don't have to ping me to a discussion I'm already involved in, 15 minutes after my previous comment in it.
Please explain how the content in question constitutes "summary-level about things that are likely to have a lasting impact on his life and/or long-term presidential legacy." ―Mandruss  18:07, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
I would argue it was not a "current and important edit" at all. This level of detail is too much for Trump's biography, and should be shunted to Presidency of Donald Trump. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
I agree not BLP material, but a little-covered rumor of a phone call doesn’t suit the Presidency article either. It might try the chronology section in the trade war article, but even there a phone call-by-phone call level seems dubious. Also, more like yet another partisan snipe than about trade talks. File it under NOTEVERYTHING. Markbassett (talk) 18:44, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I won’t justify it because I am not involved. starship.paint (talk) 00:46, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Although I was also uninvolved with this edit or this paragraph, the removed text does look like too fine-grained for this biography. I support the trimmed version. — JFG talk 16:31, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Polling copy edit[edit]

Re: [10]

My edit was in fact a copy edit, since the meaning was not changed. It's redundant to say that 42% is two points below 44%, assuming that the reader knows what a point is and can handle 42+2. So I removed the redundancy, and I added 's following Reagan to maintain the pattern established by "Obama's". That's all. A simple, everyday, innocuous copy edit. ―Mandruss  17:57, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. I don't see a justification for the reversion. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:21, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
ehh, little change in an unimportant section. Seems innocuous to me. Though my preference would be Just The Facts here of Trump, all this comparisons stuff seems too much detail and a bit OFFTOPIC. I’d say delete all the comparisons out or move to the subtopic article. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 18:55, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, no problem with the change by Mandruss. I will revert. — JFG talk 16:29, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Donald Trump series#Articles related to impeachment efforts and Ukraine/Biden controversy[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Donald Trump series#Articles related to impeachment efforts and Ukraine/Biden controversy. - MrX 🖋 10:02, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Summary of policy actions in lead section[edit]

The lead section's third paragraph was written to summarize policy actions undertaken under Trump's presidency. It has been stable for a long time, and I'd like to open a conversation to discuss whether it needs any updates. Here is the current version:

During his presidency, 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. He enacted a tax-cut package for individuals and businesses, which also rescinded the individual health insurance mandate and allowed oil drilling in the Arctic Refuge. He appointed Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. In foreign policy, Trump has pursued an America First agenda, withdrawing the U.S. from the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade negotiations, the Paris Agreement on climate change, and the Iran nuclear deal. He recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, imposed import tariffs triggering a trade war with China, and started negotiations with North Korea towards their denuclearization.


  • domestic policy: 29 words on the travel ban, 26 on the tax package (including 8 on Obamacare and 8 on oil drilling), 11 on Supreme Court appointments;
  • foreign policy: 7 words on isolationism, 20 on withdrawals from international agreements, 8 on Israel, 9 on tariffs and China, and 8 on North Korea.

Conspicuously absent topics: immigration policy, Trump wall, NATO stance, Middle-East policy beyond Israel support, deregulation efforts, trade deals (Canada/Mexico, Japan, China), what else? Comments and suggestions welcome. — JFG talk 06:07, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Oppose that level of detail about his presidency in the lead. There is simply not enough space to cover everything that's due at that level to date, let alone everything to come. I've been saying this for some time, and have been told that it would not be a problem. It's a problem, and it's going to get worse unless we change direction. I support a rewrite of that paragraph at a higher level and significantly shorter. ―Mandruss  06:25, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
We can't realistically put every policy initiative in the lead. Recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel is one that could be removed in favor of something else. The failed North Korea negotiations might be another. We could add a couple of things to the lead like immigration policy resulting in family separation. The wall doesn't merit inclusion, and deregulation is far too complicated for the lead. - MrX 🖋 11:02, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Mandruss. It needs to be trimmed, with everything being a little more generic; however, JFG is right that his stupid wall needs to be in there because it his signature policy. His foreign policy can be generically described as "isolationist" (withdrawal from international agreements, withdrawal of troops, strengthened restrictive borders with wall and travel ban) and his domestic policy can be generically described as "conservative" (tax cuts for corporations and rich people, conservative justices, promoting fossil fuel industries, spending cuts). -- Scjessey (talk) 13:32, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
I strongly oppose including the wall, at least until all 1,954 miles are completed. Aspirations ≠ Achievements.- MrX 🖋 13:49, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Heck, if it was half of that, I would be fine. But right now it's really nothing much. starship.paint (talk) 14:18, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Syria withdrawal needs to go in, abandonment of American allies has caused actual bloodshed as a consequence. Trim Muslim ban, add family detentions and separations. No to the wall, it basically does not exist. Remove oil drilling. No to NATO, nothing much concrete? See if the new NAFTA can be put beside the old NAFTA. Don’t even know of trade deals with China and Japan. starship.paint (talk)
It needs to be way more generic than that. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:38, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
I agree with removing oil drilling.- MrX 🖋 13:49, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of editor OR as to what's most significant. We now have extensive tertiary sources -- summary articles in academic media, non-daily periodicals, and books -- that should be used for perspective. Those sources prioritize the deprecation of post WW2 world order (NATO, Free Trade, etc.), Deconstruction of the US Federal Government, Politicization of the US Judiciary, the southern border atrocities, and the focus on reality-TV style show communication to replace historical and conventional modes of US presidential speech. These are the items RS tell us are of lasting significance. So, just for one example: The "Wall" is an instance of the last, not per se a significant policy or event. SPECIFICO talk 14:00, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO and JFG: - how would you word anything on NATO since you both mentioned it? Come to think of it, He embraced Twitter as a communication tool is possible. starship.paint (talk) 14:40, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
He deprecated America's global alliances, including NATO, SEATO, and the partnerships underlying the TPP talks, the Iran Nuclear Deal, and..." For actual text, we'd have to search sources for summary descriptions and specifics. SPECIFICO talk 16:55, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

During his presidency, Trump's strict immigration policies resulted in migrant detentions, family separations, and a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries. He enacted a tax-cut package for individuals and businesses, while rescinding the individual health insurance mandate. He appointed Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. In foreign policy, Trump has pursued an America First agenda, withdrawing the U.S. from the Paris Agreement on climate change, the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade negotiations, and the Iran nuclear deal. He imposed import tariffs triggering a trade war with China, and withdrew U.S. troops in northern Syria to avoid Turkey's offensive on American-allied Kurds.

This is 104 words, a trim of 16 words from 120. starship.paint (talk) 14:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Trim more!

During his presidency, Trump's strict immigration policies included migrant detentions, family separations, and a travel ban. He enacted tax-cuts for individuals and businesses and rescinded the individual health insurance mandate. He appointed Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. In foreign policy, Trump's America First agenda included withdrawing from the Paris Agreement, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and the Iran nuclear deal. He triggered a trade war with China and Turkey's offensive on American-allied Kurds.

Maybe even more could go, quite honestly. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:45, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
The travel ban part can be improved. He enacted a harsh measure which was very famous and swiftly legally blocked, then eventually enacted softer measures. So which should be linked? You want to remove the Justices? I would have kept the tariffs though. starship.paint (talk) 14:48, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
This is the lead. Anything that needs expanding on is already happening in the body of the article, or at links to related articles. We need brevity. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:51, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
I get it, man. I didn't mean expanding upon it. I'm asking which should we include. The harsh blocked ban, or the softer ban that actually went through, because we aren't going to include both. starship.paint (talk) 14:58, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Starship.paint's version would work for me. The main issue I have with Scjessey's version is the the phrase "travel ban" is too ambiguous. If we could somehow include his myriad foreign policy fuck ups, that would be great too.- MrX 🖋 18:03, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
But do we really have WEIGHT to say the foreign policy is bumbling and not a deliberate pivot? Former administration officials are reported having said the latter. Similarly, is the travel ban an immigration policy or just redecorating? SPECIFICO talk 18:15, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I'm very encouraged with the discussion here. It looks like we are all on board the trimming train, but there's just a little bit of disagreement as to which track it should take. Let's see more examples of text, please. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:18, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Meanwile there's been a very POV "trim" of the Trump U text that needs revert and discussion. SPECIFICO talk 18:22, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I had a problem with that one. It's bad enough we can't include anything about in the lead. Also, the link to Business projects of Donald Trump in Russia was removed and is already hidden it the nav box. What's up with that?- MrX 🖋 19:37, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
I gave it a try on the Trump U. It's a bit shorter and at least it's NPOV. Good catch on the Russia thing. Russia is getting the Unperson treatment. SPECIFICO talk 21:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Suggest: No change at this time. Take some time like a month or so to discuss — the existing content covers a lot of the topic and has been relatively unobjectionable. That said, I’d suggest shorten the travel ban and tax bits - the lead only needs to identify the bigger bits in a few words, going into the steps involved belongs elsewhere. After that, I would say just a couple words for ‘cancel DACA’, and a couple for ‘cancel NAFTA’. Keep it short. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:43, 17 October 2019 (UTC)


The signature image is quite out-of-date (from at least as far back as 2009); Donald Trump has changed the average look of his signature to look significantly different. Erik Humphrey (talk) 23:03, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't think so. If you look here you will see that his signature is still roughly the same as it is in the infobox. People don't sign exactly the same way each time as we are not computers and don't "copy/paste" our signature to documents each time we sign. If you have a signature that you are certain is new and is significantly different, maybe we could discuss changing it, but I don't think that will happen. Mgasparin (talk) 23:13, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
There have been a lot of discussions on the issue, but that one is far from the only currently in the infobox! That article only supports the point ;p Erik Humphrey (talk) 23:18, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
There have been significant advances in machine learning, image processing and reasons to fear identity theft since 2009. If anyone knows a computer program who can vouch for Trump's continued authenticity, I say it's time for a change. Maybe we could simulate the scenario in a superslick silicate sandbox ten times first, in case replacement has consequences humans can't fathom, but finding out the old-fashioned way seems about right right now. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:50, October 17, 2019 (UTC)
In other words, I'm in favour of updating the image if we know it's newer and his. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:18, October 17, 2019 (UTC)