Jump to content

Talk:Donald Trump: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 105) (bot
Line 270: Line 270:
:{{u|Markbassett}} - I disagree, the body already supports the sentence I propose adding to the lead and we wiki link to the main article on the 2000 election there. The article is already breaking our [[WP:SIZE]] rule so I oppose expanding the article needlessly.--[[User:Literaturegeek|<span style="color:blue">Literaturegeek</span>]]&nbsp;|&nbsp;[[User_talk:Literaturegeek|<span style="color:blue">''T@1k?''</span>]] 18:55, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
:{{u|Markbassett}} - I disagree, the body already supports the sentence I propose adding to the lead and we wiki link to the main article on the 2000 election there. The article is already breaking our [[WP:SIZE]] rule so I oppose expanding the article needlessly.--[[User:Literaturegeek|<span style="color:blue">Literaturegeek</span>]]&nbsp;|&nbsp;[[User_talk:Literaturegeek|<span style="color:blue">''T@1k?''</span>]] 18:55, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
::[[User:Literaturegeek]] Oh, I agree it's too big -- but it's recentism and not the BLP portion that's the problem -- and making the 2000 election its own subsection of a couple paras instead of a sub-sub-subsection would at least show it a bit more here towards the [[WP:LEAD]] notion of one should mention major parts of the article. At just 5 lines, the 2000 campaign here may just appear too little of the article to mention. Regardless, I think it good and valid to add a few words about 2000 into the lead just as I would mention numerous movie appearances and the WWE parts of his life. ("he appeared in numerous films, was a major host for WWE from 1988 to 2009, andin 2000 he sought nomination of the Reform party for President"). But I think the lead has its own SIZE issues. Cheers [[User:Markbassett|Markbassett]] ([[User talk:Markbassett|talk]]) 02:58, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
::[[User:Literaturegeek]] Oh, I agree it's too big -- but it's recentism and not the BLP portion that's the problem -- and making the 2000 election its own subsection of a couple paras instead of a sub-sub-subsection would at least show it a bit more here towards the [[WP:LEAD]] notion of one should mention major parts of the article. At just 5 lines, the 2000 campaign here may just appear too little of the article to mention. Regardless, I think it good and valid to add a few words about 2000 into the lead just as I would mention numerous movie appearances and the WWE parts of his life. ("he appeared in numerous films, was a major host for WWE from 1988 to 2009, andin 2000 he sought nomination of the Reform party for President"). But I think the lead has its own SIZE issues. Cheers [[User:Markbassett|Markbassett]] ([[User talk:Markbassett|talk]]) 02:58, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

== Facts Not in Evidence ==

In the 'Impeachment efforts and inquiry' section it claims that "... Trump had pushed the President of Ukraine to investigate Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden and his son Hunter ..." except this is not what the transcript says. Rather than giving a Partisan interpretation of the transcript would it not be better to quote the relevant section, and then note that the Left interpretation of this is Trump pushing the Ukraine to investigate Biden? Wikipedia is supposed to be apolitical but that's not possible if articles simply parrot Democrat spin. [[User:人族|人族]] ([[User talk:人族|talk]]) 05:16, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
:You may have a point, but it might go over better if not packaged in an attack on those whose politics you disagree with. [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 05:25, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
:{{reply|人族}} What transcript? It was a White House memo that presented a summary of the phone conversation. People need to stop calling it a transcript. And honestly, it's pretty clear Trump ''did'' try to push the Ukranian president into investigating the Bidens. -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 10:52, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
::[https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/25/politics/donald-trump-ukraine-transcript-call/index.html This transcript]. Scroll down for the actual White House document. If news orgs like CNN are calling that a transcript without scare quotes, that's good enough for our purposes. Not many are calling it a ''completely trustworthy'' transcript. &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">&#9742;</span>]] 13:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
:This is why we use secondary sources, and not editor interpretations of primary sources. The content in question is fine.- [[user:MrX|Mr]][[user talk:MrX|X]] 🖋 12:00, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
:If sources call it a transcript, we call it a transcript. They do. If sources say that Trump tried to pressure the president of Ukraine, then we say that Trump tried to pressure the president of Ukraine. They do.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Volunteer Marek|<span style="color:orange;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Volunteer Marek '''</span>]]</span></small> 13:26, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
::<small>[[User:Volunteer Marek]], the older I get the harder it is for me to see the individual letters against the background in your sig... [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 20:50, 27 September 2019 (UTC) </small>
:::I know you can tell by the colors, since I know they frequently show up in your nightmares.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Volunteer Marek|<span style="color:orange;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Volunteer Marek '''</span>]]</span></small> 22:03, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
* The President of Ukraine denies that he was pressured. Since this information came out more recently, I think it should take precedence. Plus, the President of Ukraine is a better source for whether he was pressured than some third party that isn't the President of Ukraine. (An individual is always the best source for their own mindset.) <span style="background:#444;padding:2px 12px">[[User:May His Shadow Fall Upon You|<span style="color:#fff">May His Shadow Fall Upon You</span>]] [[User talk:May His Shadow Fall Upon You|<span style="color:#fff"><sup>Talk</sup></span>]]</span> 13:57, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
*:I disagree with your first four sentences. If you want to show independent sources that say that Zelensky wasn't pressured, that would be worth looking at.- [[user:MrX|Mr]][[user talk:MrX|X]] 🖋 14:02, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
*:Is any of your reasoning policy-based? &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">&#9742;</span>]] 14:05, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
*:The President of the Ukraine is walking a tight rope considering the wolf (or rather, bear) is literally at his door and he is reliant on the U.S., currently headed by Trump. So, no, Zelensky denying that he felt pressured doesn't mean that he didn't feel pressured. &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:Muboshgu|Muboshgu]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Muboshgu#top|talk]]) 14:23, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
:::For {{reply to|Mandruss}}, {{reply to|Mr}}, {{reply to|Mubogshu}}. Here's a reliable source on the matter, in which the Ukrainian president denies being pressured by Trump: [[https://time.com/5686305/zelensky-ukraine-denies-trump-pressure/]] As per [[WP:RSCONTEXT]], {{tq|The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content.}} Certainly, the Ukrainian President is the most appropriate source for what the Ukrainian President's impression of the conversation was. And in any event, they are more appropriate than sources that merely speculate. As per [[WP:RS_AGE]], these sources are newer and supplant the previous speculation. <span style="background:#444;padding:2px 12px">[[User:May His Shadow Fall Upon You|<span style="color:#fff">May His Shadow Fall Upon You</span>]] [[User talk:May His Shadow Fall Upon You|<span style="color:#fff"><sup>Talk</sup></span>]]</span> 14:29, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
::::{{u|May His Shadow Fall Upon You}}, I've read the sources. And you're right, the context matters. {{tq|"I’m sorry, but I don’t want to be involved to democratic, open elections of U.S.A. No, you heard that we had good phone call. It was normal, we spoke about many things. I think, and you read it, that nobody pushed me.”}} That's what Zelensky said. I frankly think the "I don't want to be involved" part means more than "nobody pushed me". Then, {{tq|“So no pressure,” Trump added.}} If Zelensky did feel that he was pushed, though, would he say that while sitting next to Trump? He just wants to stay out of this. &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:Muboshgu|Muboshgu]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Muboshgu#top|talk]]) 14:39, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
:::::And he can stay out as he cannot be subpoenaed, but his account is part of the public record whether you feel he is being disingenuous for political reasons or not.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] ([[User talk:MONGO|talk]]) 20:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
::::This is Wikipedia's account of an entire life; at some point we have to draw a line when it comes to inclusion of relatively unimportant details. The predominance of reliable sources recognize that the issue is not whether Zelensky felt pressured but rather Trump's intent and the ethical boundaries involved. Other articles can (and do) wade deeper into the weeds of the controversy. &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">&#9742;</span>]] 14:42, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
:::::That's a good point. This is Trump's bio page, and Zelensky's response is [[WP:UNDUE]] here. We can include (and probably do already) what Zelensky said in the Trump-Ukraine controversy page. &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:Muboshgu|Muboshgu]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Muboshgu#top|talk]]) 14:45, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

::::::{{reply to|Muboshgu}} - I understand your concerns, but they are speculative in nature and would essentially be [[WP:OR]] should they guide the editorial process here. The fact remains that the Ukrainian president is clear - he was not pushed. So we shouldn't state that he was, as he is obviously the best source for his own opinions. Is it defensible to say "Yes, that's what the Ukrainian president said, but this Wikipedian doesn't believe he's telling the truth so we shouldn't include it in the article?" <span style="background:#444;padding:2px 12px">[[User:May His Shadow Fall Upon You|<span style="color:#fff">May His Shadow Fall Upon You</span>]] [[User talk:May His Shadow Fall Upon You|<span style="color:#fff"><sup>Talk</sup></span>]]</span> 14:45, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
:::::::{{u|May His Shadow Fall Upon You}}, he ''said'' he was not pushed. That does not mean he did not feel pushed. It's not my OR, I read plenty of analysis on this yesterday, but don't have the time to try to pull them up. Since when do we expect politicians to be truthful anyway? Secondary sources, like those pointing out that the Russian army is in the Ukraine, are better than verbatim regurgitating whatever Zelensky says to get the aid. &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:Muboshgu|Muboshgu]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Muboshgu#top|talk]]) 14:49, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
:::::::It helps when I look at the text in question. It says "pressured", in quotes, with the word attributed to the NYT and WaPo. Secondary sources ftw. &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:Muboshgu|Muboshgu]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Muboshgu#top|talk]]) 14:51, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
::::::{{reply to|Mandruss}} - While I agree with you that the meat of this controversy is suitable for other articles, the fact remains that this article does claim the Ukrainian president was pressured. Are you suggesting it should be taken out entirely? <span style="background:#444;padding:2px 12px">[[User:May His Shadow Fall Upon You|<span style="color:#fff">May His Shadow Fall Upon You</span>]] [[User talk:May His Shadow Fall Upon You|<span style="color:#fff"><sup>Talk</sup></span>]]</span> 14:45, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
:::::::Again, Trump can attempt to pressure without Zelensky feeling pressured (even if we assume that Zelensky is being entirely forthcoming about that), and Zelensky is not the arbiter of ethics in American politics and government. &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">&#9742;</span>]] 14:52, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
::::::::(EC) To get back to what this page is supposed to be for, namely discussing what to put in the article: There's no need to cite Zelensky here, although he should be quoted at the article about the case. There are three possible reasons why Zelensky might have said this. One is that he was sitting next to Trump at the time and knew better than to contradict him. The second is that didn't want to get involved in US politics, and if he said "yes, I was pressured" he would be involved big time; he might even be called to testify to Congress. The third is that English is not his native language, and the subtle pressure/threat in a comment like Trump's response when Zelensky asked to buy US missiles - "“I would like you to do us a favor, though" - might have escaped him. We have much stronger evidence than what anybody now says. The most important evidence we have is corroboration, in a document released by the White House itself, that Trump did press him multiple times to do the investigations he wanted. Especially the time when he hinted that Ukraine's ability to buy weaponry would depend on whether the Ukrainians did the "favor" that Trump was requesting. That is not just pressure, it is pressure using the power of the presidency. -- [[User:MelanieN|MelanieN]] ([[User talk:MelanieN|talk]]) 15:04, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::{{reply to|MelanieN}} - You might be correct. But if Wikipedia says that the Ukrainian President was pressured, that should be backed by reliable sources. And the most reliable source for the impression of the Ukrainian President is the Ukrainian President. Your comments above may be correct, but at the end of the day, it boils down to "Zelensky said it, but this Wikipedian doesn't believe it for various reasons" which is not a criteria for inclusion or exclusion. <span style="background:#444;padding:2px 12px">[[User:May His Shadow Fall Upon You|<span style="color:#fff">May His Shadow Fall Upon You</span>]] [[User talk:May His Shadow Fall Upon You|<span style="color:#fff"><sup>Talk</sup></span>]]</span> 16:57, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
:::::::@MHSFUY: If you can produce a few solid sources that say Trump ''attempted to'' pressure, I wouldn't object to the addition of those two words and the removal of the scare quotes. We just need to reflect sources and try to leave other reasoning out of it. &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">&#9742;</span>]] 15:10, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
::::::::Well, there is a third option. We could simply not say that Trump pressured Zelensky. <span style="background:#444;padding:2px 12px">[[User:May His Shadow Fall Upon You|<span style="color:#fff">May His Shadow Fall Upon You</span>]] [[User talk:May His Shadow Fall Upon You|<span style="color:#fff"><sup>Talk</sup></span>]]</span> 16:57, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::That is not an option when so many sources not only say he did but make it the most important element of the whole story. And that's the last time I will repeat that point {{endash}} if you haven't heard it by now you're not going to hear it if I say it a hundred times. ''Wikipedia is driven by reliable secondary sources.'' &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">&#9742;</span>]] 17:13, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::That would be a the second worst option. Sources predominately say "pressured" (or equivalent) and so should we. Can we move on now?- [[user:MrX|Mr]][[user talk:MrX|X]] 🖋 17:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
::::::::::Zelensky's statement that he was ''not'' pressured was made in an interview at the UN, and I could provide possibly endless reliable sources as it was covered by all major news outlets. Exactly how many do you need? <span style="background:#444;padding:2px 12px">[[User:May His Shadow Fall Upon You|<span style="color:#fff">May His Shadow Fall Upon You</span>]] [[User talk:May His Shadow Fall Upon You|<span style="color:#fff"><sup>Talk</sup></span>]]</span> 17:22, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::::Support moving on now, per [[WP:IDHT]]. We have achieved circularity. &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">&#9742;</span>]] 17:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::::There's nothing circular about it. You said that "so many sources" support using the "pressured" language. That's true. But there are also "so many sources" that cover Zelensky's comment that he wasn't pressured. You're using the number of sources as an argument for how we phrase it in the article. So why not discuss it? <span style="background:#444;padding:2px 12px">[[User:May His Shadow Fall Upon You|<span style="color:#fff">May His Shadow Fall Upon You</span>]] [[User talk:May His Shadow Fall Upon You|<span style="color:#fff"><sup>Talk</sup></span>]]</span> 17:39, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
::::::::::::You're not hearing us. We don't care how Zelensky claims he perceived the pressuring. He's not a disinterested party. Your proposal is gaining no traction and [[WP:REHASH|your arguments are becoming repetitive]]. - [[user:MrX|Mr]][[user talk:MrX|X]] 🖋 17:56, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
::::::::::::{{u|May His Shadow Fall Upon You}}, No, this has become a circular discussion. We've discussed why secondary sources are better to use than simply reporting the words that he said. &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:Muboshgu|Muboshgu]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Muboshgu#top|talk]]) 17:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::::::No idea why this discussion was shut down already? <strike>Some of us have jobs and can't chime in every 15 minutes.</strike> Since when is the NYT and WaPO better positioned than the person they are discussing to know how that person "felt"? If Zelensky said he felt no pressure, was not pressured, then of course if that is quoted by a RS secondary source, it belongs here. The fact that Zelensky says he did not feel pressured definitely belongs in this article.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] ([[User talk:MONGO|talk]]) 20:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
::::::::::::::This is not a soapbox for Zelensky's feelings. Let's stick to facts reported by highly-reliable independent sources. Trump was trying to affect the election by recruiting favors from a foreign actor. It's not Mueller Time anymore.- [[user:MrX|Mr]][[user talk:MrX|X]] 🖋 20:53, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::I don't soapbox...either we put in the disclaimer quoted by multiple reliable sources that Zelensky says he did not feel pressured or I say a formal Rfc to determine this is mandatory.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] ([[User talk:MONGO|talk]]) 21:02, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::If you want to initiate an RfC to determine if Zelensky's feelings belong in the article, knock yourself out. I can live with Drmies' edit, since it should be clear to readers that it was the asking (more like, coercing) that triggered the impeachment. - [[user:MrX|Mr]][[user talk:MrX|X]] 🖋 21:12, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::Rxamples...[https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/25/ukraine-president-on-trump-call-nobody-pushed-me.html], [https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/25/world/europe/zelensky-trump.html], [https://www.newsweek.com/ukraine-zelensky-trump-impeachment-russia-united-nations-1461262]. In other words, all we want included are outside observers and their opinions? Its an impeachment inquiry, btw.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] ([[User talk:MONGO|talk]]) 21:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
{{od|17}} Good grief—of course he said that. He desperately needs the Javelins. He's between a rock and a hard place. Would you really expect him to piss Trump off at this point?- [[user:MrX|Mr]][[user talk:MrX|X]] 🖋 21:31, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
::All I know is that he said he did not feel pressured and he stated this repeatedly and its in the reliable sources and that should be part of the public record here.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] ([[User talk:MONGO|talk]]) 22:28, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
:RS have told us he and his country are being held hostage. The only thing I didn't understand is why there were initially scare quotes around "pressured". And it's not as if there was a shortage of sources that said he was pressured, threatened, coerced, etc. [[User:SPECIFICO |<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b>]][[User_talk:SPECIFICO | ''talk'']] 21:36, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
::I think the quotes were meant to attribute that word to the source. Since it is a widely-reported view, the quotes are not really necessary.- [[user:MrX|Mr]][[user talk:MrX|X]] 🖋 21:48, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
*I changed "pressured" to "asked". Cause, as far as I know, he certainly asked. Whether some read that kind of asking as, you know, not really asking, that's another matter. Instead of discussing mindsets, let's move on. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 20:55, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
*:Hardly an earthshaking matter, and it will undoubtedly be rewritten in due course with fresh sources and context. On the other hand this seems like a clear case of one/two editors obstinately overriding clear consensus on this morsel. [[User:SPECIFICO |<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b>]][[User_talk:SPECIFICO | ''talk'']] 21:09, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
::*[[User:SPECIFICO]], I've closed a lot of RfCs. There is no clear consensus. If I am the "obstinate" overrider--well. Ahem. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 01:39, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
:::*Ha, no not you. There was a snow consensus when I closed it. I'm so disappointed, cause I never closed anything before. But anyway, for the record, I do not feel "pressured". [[User:SPECIFICO |<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b>]][[User_talk:SPECIFICO | ''talk'']] 01:53, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
**I think "asked" is better on the facts that we know them.--[[User:Jack Upland|Jack Upland]] ([[User talk:Jack Upland|talk]]) 21:45, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

*: Think the enthusiasm is running ahead of facts here -- 'pressured' is an interpretation not a fact, and if speaking about that then NPOV would require including the denials of the individuals involved, President Trump and President Zelensky, as well as phrasing it as 'alleged pressure' or 'suspected pressure' and not saying it as if objective fact agreed to by all or that no other RS positions exist. On the other hand, one can say 'Biden pressured Ukraine' to fire the prosecutor investigating the company his son was on the board of, because Biden himself asserts that (brags even) and the accounts of the Ukrainians and etcetera also match that. (But one should add the claim it was for firing for corruption concerns, and for goodness sake use cites of then not cites of now.) Cheers [[User:Markbassett|Markbassett]] ([[User talk:Markbassett|talk]]) 21:49, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
*::Horsepucky. The RS accounts of the matter say "pressured" "pressed" "extracted" "squeezed" "twisted" usw.[[User:SPECIFICO |<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b>]][[User_talk:SPECIFICO | ''talk'']] 21:56, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
*::: Un-hunh, and per NPOV if any of those are DUE mention, then apply attribution to the interpretation and provide the opposing significant views. The accounts of Biden on the other hand have a self-declaration and the view echoed from bipartisan viewpoint. Still an interpretation, but one that no longer needs attribution. Cheers [[User:Markbassett|Markbassett]] ([[User talk:Markbassett|talk]]) 00:19, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
*:::: {{tq|the opposing significant views}} -- Ain't none. [[User:SPECIFICO |<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b>]][[User_talk:SPECIFICO | ''talk'']] 01:34, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
*The issue I see is [[WP:RECENTISM]] - so what is the hurry? Let's wait and see if there will be any corrections published by MSM once all the facts are known? It is pretty obvious that one side wants to impeach whereas the other side is wondering on what grounds? We're dealing with a whistle blower who repeated second hand information which is not corroborated by the transcript of the actual discussion. Got Russian collusion? How is this helping our readers, and what is the long term encyclopedic value? I'm still waiting for the pee tapes from the 2016 election. What was the other "pressing" issue...uhm...oh yeah, obstruction of justice over the false allegations of collusion. Suggestion - we don't have the blue dress, yet - let's wait until we have some real evidence to substantiate the claims. [[User:Atsme|<span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D"><sup>Atsme</sup></span>]] <sub>[[User talk:Atsme|<small>Talk</small>]]</sub> [[Special:EmailUser/Atsme|📧]] 22:08, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

:{{u|Atsme}} The so called Pee Tapes will never surface, unless they serve Vlad's purpose, when he needs to blackmail DRJ. There was a very brief image that surfaced on the net,then quickly taken down of a female, legs spread, urinating on a bed, DRJ in background smiling with two thumbs up, but this is the age of photoshop. What concerns me is this phrase: "oh yeah, obstruction of justice over the false allegations of collusion". First off there was never a charge of collusion, the whole word originiated in the Trump camp, and there is nothing in the literature which claims collusion is a crime.However the Mueller report does document conspiracy among other crimes,like obstruction. Of course we will have to wait 50 years,if ever, to see the complete report so heavily redacted by Wm Barr. Which raises another issue: Over classification. There are strict guidelines for classifying documents and not one of them is to protect the political career or persons of people. Classification is done to protect National Security period. Secondly I would like to challenge your assertion that these allegations of collusion" were false, even using your terminology in quotes, lends some validity to the notion of collusion, again the charge is not collusion, the evidence is conspiracy (with a foreign power) and obstruction. [[User:Oldperson|Oldperson]] ([[User talk:Oldperson|talk]]) 01:49, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

*:Welcome Atsme! [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZvugebaT6Q Please join us!] [[User:SPECIFICO |<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b>]][[User_talk:SPECIFICO | ''talk'']] 22:17, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
*::<small>Just call me Harpo! [[User:Atsme|<span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D"><sup>Atsme</sup></span>]] <sub>[[User talk:Atsme|<small>Talk</small>]]</sub> [[Special:EmailUser/Atsme|📧]] 23:10, 27 September 2019 (UTC)</small>
*:Now it's a party! But really folks, were not here to litigate the rightness or wrongness of Trump's dealings, or the credibility of witnesses We just need to reflect the preponderance of the sources. If a lot of sources are reporting certain facts, and if they are relevant to Trump, they generally belong in this article. - [[user:MrX|Mr]][[user talk:MrX|X]] 🖋 22:24, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
::Glad we can agree.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] ([[User talk:MONGO|talk]]) 22:30, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
:::Maybe we can all agree that the President did "ask" or solicit help from a foreign leader (foreign government) to enable an investigation into the Biden's to benefit the the President's campaign. It sounds like there is agreement for that. It is in the document that recounts the call and in the whistleblower complaint. [[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]]) 02:39, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
::::The article now says asked, and that is a good solution. It doesn't get into the question of whether there was pressure or not, so there is no need to quote Zelensky (since it is irrefutably established that Trump did ask). I think the one other thing we might want to do in that section is to put quotes around "favor" to show that it was Trump's exact word. -- [[User:MelanieN|MelanieN]] ([[User talk:MelanieN|talk]]) 13:39, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
:::::I "hate" that "practice". Everyone knows what a favour is, just like everyone knows what pressure is, even Trump, quoting single words just makes them "questionable", "unusual" or "ironic". And we shouldn't forget Biden's current opponents; Ukrainian intelligence hurting his standing would benefit them all, politically. Not a totally selfish request, even if "the Donald" intended it that way. [[User:InedibleHulk|InedibleHulk]] [[User_Talk:InedibleHulk|(talk)]] 15:46, [[October 1]], [[2019]] (UTC)

* As I stated above, the problem is primarily contextual. There are reliable sources which do claim that Zelensky was "pressured", which is a subjective assessment of Zelesky's state of mind. Who is the best authority on Zelesky's state of mind? Zelensky. This is why we have [[WP:RSCONTEXT]]. It defies all reason to suggest that Zelensky is not the best source for what Zelensky thinks. <span style="background:#444;padding:2px 12px">[[User:May His Shadow Fall Upon You|<span style="color:#fff">May His Shadow Fall Upon You</span>]] [[User talk:May His Shadow Fall Upon You|<span style="color:#fff"><sup>Talk</sup></span>]]</span> 14:00, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
::Please [[WP:STICK|drop the stick]]. We do not say in this article that he was pressured, so there is no need for us to quote him saying that he was not pressured. "Pressure" IS mentioned at [[Trump-Ukraine controversy]], and so is Zelensky's denial. Pressure is not mentioned here, so neither is his denial. Issue resolved; please move on. -- [[User:MelanieN|MelanieN]] ([[User talk:MelanieN|talk]]) 15:25, 1 October 2019 (UTC)


== Whistleblower Shenanigans? ==
== Whistleblower Shenanigans? ==

Revision as of 01:00, 9 October 2019

    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 may be 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
    DateProcessResult
    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

    Template:Vital article

    Highlighted open discussions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    10. Canceled
    Keep Barron Trump's name in the list of children and wikilink it, which redirects to his section in Family of Donald Trump per AfD consensus. (Jan 2017, Nov 2016) Canceled: Barron's BLP has existed since June 2019. (June 2024)
    11. Superseded by #17
    The lead sentence is "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman, television personality, politician, and the 45th President of the United States." (Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017) (superseded by #17 since 2 April 2017)

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

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

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

    15. Superseded by lead rewrite
    Supersedes #4. There is no consensus to change the formulation of the paragraph which summarizes election results in the lead (starting with "Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, …"). Accordingly the pre-RfC text (Diff 8 Jan 2017) has been restored, with minor adjustments to past tense (Diff 11 Feb 2018). No new changes should be applied without debate. (RfC Feb 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017, Feb 2017) In particular, there is no consensus to include any wording akin to "losing the popular vote". (RfC March 2017) (Superseded by local consensus on 26 May 2017 and lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017)
    16. Superseded by lead rewrite
    Do not mention Russian influence on the presidential election in the lead section. (RfC March 2017) (Superseded by lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017)
    17. Superseded by #50
    Supersedes #11. The lead paragraph is "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current president of the United States. Before entering politics, he was a businessman and television personality." The hatnote is simply {{Other uses}}. (April 2017, RfC April 2017, April 2017, April 2017, April 2017, July 2017, Dec 2018) Amended by lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017 and removal of inauguration date on 4 July 2018. Lower-case "p" in "president" per Dec 2018 and MOS:JOBTITLES RfC Oct 2017. Wikilinks modified per April 2020. Wikilink modified again per July 2020. "45th" de-linked. (Jan 2021)
    18. Superseded by #63
    The "Alma mater" infobox entry shows "Wharton School (BS Econ.)", does not mention Fordham University. (April 2017, April 2017, Aug 2020, Dec 2020)
    19. Obsolete
    Following deletion of Trump's official White House portrait for copyright reasons on 2 June 2017, infobox image was replaced by File:Donald Trump Pentagon 2017.jpg. (June 2017 for replacement, June 2017, declined REFUND on 11 June 2017) (replaced by White House official public-domain portrait according to #1 since 31 Oct 2017)

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

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

    22. Do not call Trump a "liar" in Wikipedia's voice. Falsehoods he uttered can be mentioned, while being mindful of calling them "lies", which implies malicious intent. (RfC Aug 2017, upheld by RfC July 2024)

    23. Superseded by #52
    The lead includes the following sentence: Trump ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, citing security concerns; after legal challenges, the Supreme Court upheld the policy's third revision. (Aug 2017, Nov 2017, Dec 2017, Jan 2018, Jan 2018) Wording updated (July 2018) and again (Sep 2018).
    24. Superseded by #30
    Do not include allegations of racism in the lead. (Feb 2018) (superseded by #30 since 16 Aug 2018)

    25. In citations, do not code the archive-related parameters for sources that are not dead. (Dec 2017, March 2018)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    35. Superseded by #49
    Supersedes #7. Include in the lead: Trump has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency. The statements have been documented by fact-checkers, and the media have widely described the phenomenon as unprecedented in American politics. (RfC Feb 2019)
    36. Superseded by #39
    Include one paragraph merged from Health of Donald Trump describing views about Trump's psychology expressed by public figures, media sources, and mental health professionals who have not examined him. (June 2019) (paragraph removed per RfC Aug 2019 yielding consensus #39)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    45. Superseded by #48
    There is no consensus to mention the COVID-19 pandemic in the lead section. (RfC May 2020, July 2020)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    54. Include in the lead that, quote, Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in U.S. history. (RfC October 2021) Amended after re-election: After his first term, scholars and historians ranked Trump one of the worst presidents in American history. (November 2024)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    66. Omit {{infobox criminal}}. (RfC June 2024)

    67. The "Health habits" section includes: "Trump says he has never drunk alcohol, smoked cigarettes, or used drugs. He sleeps about four or five hours a night." (February 2021)

    RfC: books in lead

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

    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)[reply]

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

    Survey for books in lead

    • Option C first choice, Option B second choice - the amount of ghostwriting done on Trump's behalf leaves me uncomfortable with Option A. Reading his tweets, the ghostwriting seems necessary. Between Option B and Option C, as Trump himself is not a publishing company, Option C is preferable. starship.paint (talk) 08:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    C is also OK. D is preferable to A. SPECIFICO talk 13:19, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option D first choice with (very reluctant) Option C as 2nd. Gandydancer (talk) 16:54, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    How many books is Trump the "sole author" of? -- Scjessey (talk) 12:11, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • Option A (Summoned by bot) Coretheapple (talk) 19:00, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      @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)[reply]
    • Option A - I agree the focus should be on "author", and A fits the bill. Atsme Talk 📧 21:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option C first choice, Option B second choice - per User:Starship.paint -ColumbiaXY (talk) 19:46, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Nobody has proposed that. Please be responsive. SPECIFICO talk 04:00, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion for books in lead

    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      I'm sorry. I tried my best on this. starship.paint (talk) 01:54, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      Well, nobody invited an outside closer yet... so I did what I thought was right. starship.paint (talk) 05:44, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      Okay cool, @SPECIFICO:. I take zero offense. Perhaps we should try that. starship.paint (talk) 15:34, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    @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)[reply]

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

    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)[reply]

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

    Fix needed for line in Racial Views

    User:Scjessey - I'm glad you agree to the part of (my edit) that "shitholes" in paragraph 5 of the Racial Views section was a misquote for Trump's saying "shithole countries" (alleged by Durbin) during a negotiation about four countries in Temporary protected status. However, the part undone by you (here) still needs fixing. The cite to Guardian about global rebuke for 'shithole' remark is suitable for use in paragraph 5 about that topic, but it is not appropriate to duplicate the topic and it is not sufficient WP:V for the broad claim in paragraph 1 "Trump has been condemned as a racist within the U.S. and abroad."

    • The cite says Trumps remarks were racist, it is improper conflation to say that as "Trump has been condemned as a racist".
    • The cite does not support "U.S." as none condemning him nor saying "racist" is in that cite. The only U.S. mention seems to be Dick Durbin insisting the reports were correct, that shithole was said repeatedly, and that it was used in the context of African countries.
    • The "abroad" is exaggerating -- remarks being said as "racist" is only tied in the article for three governmental entities -- the UN Human Rights spokesperson, El Salvador, and Botswana. (p.s.add: and African Union said “very racist” comments. Markbassett (talk) 03:57, 3 October 2019 (UTC)) There is also at the end a single quote at the end from Blessing Dlamini, a 45-year-old administrative assistant which does call Trump a racist but that is not enough to support inclusion of a line in this article with the description as "abroad". (Though I suppose the Guardian writers themselves would also qualify as 'abroad', just two seem not enough.)[reply]
    • The bulk of the nations cited use different words. The African Union, the Vatican, Haiti, Uganda,and South Africa are mentioned as rebuking with other words like "harsh and offensive", "lack of respect and ignorance", and "abhorrent". To just say the word racist as the summary of these, without attribution, seems an misportrayal that is unnecessarily inflammatory and contrary to WP:RACIST and WP:BLP.
    • Finally - the line 1 is just too vague and gives an exaggerated impression by not specifying the event(s) involved or the attribution of who said "racist".

    While I don't doubt that in the U.S. and abroad Trump is called many things (both praised and reviled), this cite is just not WP:V for the line as written. I suggest that I move the cite again to the section it relates to, but since you want the line in paragraph 1 think it would be appropriate to leave that line with a 'citation needed' tag for you to provide as able. RSVP, cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:38, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    The current text appropriately represents the cited sources. Your points read as nitpicking to misrepresent the well-cited content. We could add additional sources that would address your nits -- e.g. "condemned as racist" -- but the tone and substance of the article text is consistent with mainstream reporting. SPECIFICO talk 13:01, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Racist appears to be an opposition "talking point", and not too unlike MB, I question its verifiability. Brazile summed it up nicely from a NPOV, and that is what I believe we should be looking at as well. Atsme Talk 📧 14:23, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    We are not using the Democratic Party as a source. We use RS. I don't know if this is a "talking point". But, if it is what RS say, that's not relevant. O3000 (talk) 15:01, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I'm just not seeing a need for a change. The text as presented encapsulates nicely what has been reported in mainstream reliable sources. I know consensus can change, but it is getting a little tiresome rehashing this over and over again. We are going to need to see something new to make a change something to consider. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:03, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that what is presented in mainstream RS is what we are supposed to include and when there are updates, we include them as well. There are several RS that dispute/question the waning claim of racism, and the one I linked to above is one of them that can be cited, but we also have NYmag and RealClear Politics which I confirmed is a RS via RSN, among others. It's time to update the old news with new news that will actually stand the test of time because it is based on factual evidence rather than opinion. Atsme Talk 📧 17:40, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    We've been careful not to label Trump a racist, but we do have ample cited sources for the way we handle this difficult issue in the current text. Donna Brazile, who's really quite marginalized nowadays, is disagreeing with something the current article does not say. So we are all in with her, right? SPECIFICO talk 17:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh? ??? Atsme Talk 📧 17:51, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    WP does not label him a "racist" -- we talk about racist speech, racist actions, and it's all pretty weaselly. Just like Donna Brasile on Fox. SPECIFICO talk 18:42, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Atsme: First of all, you did not "confirm" the article in RealClear Politics, which is actually a syndicated opinion piece from Creators Syndicate, in that thread you linked to. That refers to an entirely different article from a different source. Second, there is no "dispute" in reliable sources about this so-called "waning claim" of Trump's racism. If anything, more and more reliable sources have begun to label Trump in this way as more evidence of Trump's racism has come to light and the media gets more comfortable with the word. It is so unusual and extraordinary to be in this position, it took a while for the media to come around to it. And as SPECIFICO says, we don't actually label Trump a racist (even though many reliable sources do). -- Scjessey (talk) 18:46, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Scjessey OK, go ahead with that “could add additional sources”. That could make the V fine, if you want to keep the line. To me the line seems not worth it as unspecific and unremarkable. (Nothing remarkable in being criticized abroad as being racist... for example, JFK was criticized for racist hypocrisy.). But there has to be a cite that actually SAYS what is put into text, not just any old cite like this one was. The wording of WP:V that I was following is fairly explicit for this: “Please immediately remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced.” If one doesn’t give a cite of US criticism, the line cannot say US criticism; if doesn’t give a cite re calling Trump a racist then the line cannot say re he is called a racist. Shouldn’t be too hard to find, but either more is put in or the line has to go. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:34, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:SPECIFICO I backed out your edits as not good citing and contrary to discussions. Those edits moved the line about "condemned" so it overwrote the "characterized as racially charged or racist" but left the cites that were for "characterized as racially charged or racist" and they just are not good for the other line. This was also contrary to a lot of "characterized" discussions including for this line. The "condemned" line is back to where it was, now with a 'citation needed' on it. Please only put cite(s) that ACTUALLY support the line, and if such is hard to find then I suggest take that as clear indication the line needs to change to match what's actually out there. (Instead of what looks like some editor just did creative writing.) Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:22, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm pretty sure it was better before your recent edit. I didn't make any significant changes to the meaning that would have required new sources, and between the aggregation of your changes and the tone and substance of you claim are my sourcing and content changes, I have no interest in sorting it out to fix whatever you just did. Maybe somebody else will feel like at least undoing your changes to get back to the status quo. Thanks for the ex post ping. SPECIFICO talk 03:51, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, its been a week for Scjessey to give a citation needed and he apparently didn't mean it - so just got Specifico flying thru the mix. Did get cites - that went to 'characterized'; later got cites to Jan 11 that also did not WP:V the line of text. They could support 'widely denounced' for shithole comments paragraph lower down but do not contain "condemned globally as a racist". So proceeding with the WP:V guidance to do deletion. And also returning the much discussed and longstanding consensus 'characterized' phrasing at start. Markbassett (talk) 06:50, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:SPECIFICO I see you have reverted my edit again - it seems Scjessey, Atsme, and Objective3000 had their say and dropped out to just the two of us now involved, so are we at an impasse ?
    WP:RACIST and WP:V are the policies that I’m looking at. Again, my position is that the cites re shithole comments are good for the shithole section saying “ shithole comments were denounced worldwide”, or “shithole comments were denounced worldwide, with El Salvador, Botswana and the U.N. Human Rights spokesman calling them racist”. But to use such a cite to repeat it at the top as an vague unlimited overall and personal claim “Trump has been condemned as a racist within the U.S. and abroad” seems to me clearly exaggeration/conflation failing V and RACIST.
    I have no doubt that Trump is both praised and condemned and disputed over in many ways ... but I am just not seeing cites given for making a RACIST claim or “condemn” phrasing as the whole world except for Trump. (I actually think it’s widely disputed. Though I’ve seen some simply making accuracy distinctions among Xenophobia VS Bigotry VS Racism.). So again - are we at an impasse ? Markbassett (talk) 18:43, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:RACIST is a) not a policy and b) not relevant to this discussion. SPECIFICO talk 19:05, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    So more precisely, the Core content policyWP:V and the guideline WP:Racist are mostly what I’m looking at, with some input from Core content policy WP:NPOV and the policy WP:BLP. Cites to e comments denounced by many nations’ are present at the shithole section, and two nations called those comments racist - but that is not V for’Trump (the person) has been condemned as racist worldwide’. If you’re saying that WP:Racist is not relevant, that’s interesting, but the question was: *** are we at an impasse ? *** RSVP, thanks. Markbassett (talk) 20:09, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Markbassett: I have not "dropped out" of anything. I said I prefer the existing text. There's no "impasse" at all - you seem to be alone in complaining, which means consensus is against you. Why do you keep flogging this dead horse? -- Scjessey (talk) 20:39, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Scjessey ah, welcome back. It’s been a while since your 13:01 19 Sept post which included “could add additional cites” in response to my topic here of the cite was not saying ‘Trump condemned as racist’ nor ‘worldwide’. From your next post 26 Sept responding to my reminder of waiting for such, it seemed you had dropped any intention of continuing or offering such cites, possibly that you were content re Specificos edits and multiples of what I said is not V — repeat of the shithole paragraph cites ‘shithole comments denounced, two nations say they were racist comments’ is not proper for ‘Trump the man condemned as racist by the world’. Thanks for letting me that you still are involved. It being a vague LABEL poorly sourced seemed a clear delete by policy, and easy as it also was without particular context or position in any narrative. That’s why I deleted it, as seemed viewed favorably by Atsme and Objective3000. (Note also archive 104 discussion of this section content from Kbruen, Literaturegeek, BusStop, where this started from.). Since you’re back that means the proper label is “disputed” instead of a 2-editors “impasse”, will proceed accordingly. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:27, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Markbassett, that's not "more precise" -- in fact it's less precise, as in "throw it against the wall and see what sticks" (no offense). The text can be put back because we are not under the unanimity required thing here and if you feel strongly perhaps you could go to NPOVN or similar? I think we're good to go and move on to other areas of improvement. SPECIFICO talk 21:12, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    User:SPECIFICO ok, will do. Was thinking it time to throw at some dispute resolution, glad to see your suggestion is likewise. Markbassett (talk) 03:29, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @MarkBassett: It’s been a while since your 13:01 19 Sept post which included “could add additional cites” You keep mentioning this comment of mine that does not exist, which means this doesn't make any sense: From your next post 26 Sept responding to my reminder of waiting for such, it seemed you had dropped any intention of continuing or offering such cites. At no time did I say additional cites could be added. And the rest of your comment seems to just be trying to bait me into arguing with you. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:43, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Scjessey Dooh! sorry, I got that wrong — it was SPECIFICO and not you. And no baiting intended wherever it is you’re concerned about, I was just trying to summarize events. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:57, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    User:SPECIFICO ok, I have filed this one at WP:3O. That's meant for a 2-editor impasse, but it says "3O is usually flexible by allowing a few exceptions, like those involving mainly two editors with an extra editor having minimal participation." -- and it seems Scjessey, Atsme, and Objective3000 had their say and mostly dropped out to just the two of us now involved, so maybe we will see what someone outside the usual players thinks. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:00, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @SPECIFICO and Markbassett: Reuters: African politicians and diplomats labeled U.S. President Donald Trump a racist on Friday after he was reported to have described some immigrants from Africa and Haiti as coming from “shithole” countries. starship.paint (talk) 06:56, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Starship.paint thanks, but that’s kind of more of the same. We already had that on 12 Jan 2018 Botswana “called the comments” “racist”, didn’t have the AU alarmed by “very racist” comments. Still, that’s the issue - it is only the one event and the alleged comments being called racist at 12 Jan 2018, a narrow event/item, and relatively few of the 195(?) nations. It doesn’t V directly or well to say that as Trump being called racist, in general, worldwide, no specific time/area. (I was able to find RS of ‘Democrats call Trump racist’ which does seem a common/general item, and occurring since 2016 ... but while being a talking point is missing content, it isn’t the question here.) With multiple cautions against name-calling in V, BLP, RACIST, and NPOV, ... think should just state the facts at the para about the event, without artistic license or vagueness into some overall. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 11:55, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    African politicians and diplomats labeled U.S. President Donald Trump a racist

    satisfies Trump has been condemned as a racist ... abroad. starship.paint (talk) 14:00, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Starship.paint Nope, again still kind of the same as we had except for the AU info. The article supports what it says, not what the article said, which is

    “African politicians”

    bit if it included the limiting in the same sentence

    “...after he was reported to have described some immigrants from Africa and Haiti as having come from ‘shithole countries’.”

    The article then states it as AU and Botswana calling his *comments* that, not calling him that. The artistic embellishment “condemned” isn’t there, nor were nations governments calling Trump himself racist, nor is it at all other than 12 January. The attribution (*) would be of “Reuter’s reported that African politicians labelled Trump racist on 12 January...”. Reuter’s seems closest cite so far although it seems the only RS to go that far. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:47, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (*)from WP:RACIST “best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution.” Markbassett (talk) 03:53, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (cont.) or WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV/WP:SUBSTANTIATE attribute an opinion or another approach is to specify or substantiate by giving those details that are actually factual. Markbassett (talk) 04:13, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Markbassett: changed to

    Trump has made numerous comments and taken certain actions that have been characterized as racially charged or racist, by both those within the U.S. and abroad

    starship.paint (talk) 04:02, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Starship.paint ! Excellent merge sir, with adding the ‘shithole’ articles of Reuter’s and Politico to the ones previously supporting the prior first line “Trump has made numerous comments and taken certain actions that have been characterized as racially charged or racist.” Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:21, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    2000 presidential campaign

    There is a rather biased playing down of Trump's 2000 campaign on this page. All other presidents have their first presidential run displayed prominently both in the lead and as a section of its own. A casual reader would be convinced that 2016 was the first time Trump ran for president, when it was in fact the second. The 2000 presidential run should be restored as a section in the article and in the lead, which was the case before Trump was sworn into office. Plumber (talk) 07:27, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion re. Lead

    How is it that the WP:LEAD contains the names of who he appointed to the Supreme Court and various other factoids that don’t have their own dedicated ‘Trump series’ articles are more notable and WP:DUE than a presidential run in 2000, which has an entire Wikipedia article dedicated to it?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 05:35, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Literaturegeek There is a whole article dedicated to Trump's appointment of Supreme court justices. See List of federal judges appointed by Donald Trump. I'm not sure what other "factoids" are mentioned that don't have their own article, but if you can point any out that would be fine. Mgasparin (talk) 07:26, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of the last paragraph of the lead contains factoids that while wiki-linked do not wiki link to Trump focused articles. In other words, like I suggested, we include less WP:DUEWEIGHT material in the lead. Surely, a single short sentence added to the start of the second paragraph saying: Donald Trump first ran for president in 2000 and was unsuccessful is more than justified, per WP:WEIGHT? We are doing our readers a great disservice by withholding this from the lead; I know as a reader from the U.K. who did not know about this previous run until yesterday that it is something that would interest me and others. Currently the lead tells us the names of two judges appointed to the Supreme Court — the average reader, especially outside USA, does not care about a factoid like that.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 08:44, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Literaturegeek Yeah, I'd agree that a sentence mentioning that he did run in 2000 is warranted, especially given that he has claimed in the past that he won the election on the first try (don't ask me to find RS for that, though). If you want to remove his Supreme Court nominees, an Rfc or a more formal dicussion might be the best avenue. What would you propose the revised lead look like? Mgasparin (talk) 20:37, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Mgasparin I was just making the point that less notable, less interesting stuff is in the lead, I am not strongly motivated to remove the Supreme Court stuff. The proposed change would be something like adding the first sentence in green and tweaking slightly the second sentence of the second paragraph like the second sentence in green. Like this: Trump’s first presidential campaign was in 2000, where he sought but failed to obtain nomination for the Reform Party. His next attempt was the 2016 presidential race which he entered as a Republican and defeated 16 other candidates in the primaries. I am quite open to the wording being improved by other editors.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:20, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Literaturegeek I think I could support something along those lines, as it explains his past campaigns quite concisely, w/o going into much detail. Just keep in mind that we are trying to keep the lead within the recommended guidelines for size, as the ultimate goal of this article is FA. Mgasparin (talk) 08:57, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Literaturegeek - Suggest instead work on content for it first, and see if that is significant enough for WP:LEAD. Perhaps you can do it by dividing the "Political activities up to 2015" section -- maybe this will help here. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:07, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Markbassett - I disagree, the body already supports the sentence I propose adding to the lead and we wiki link to the main article on the 2000 election there. The article is already breaking our WP:SIZE rule so I oppose expanding the article needlessly.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:55, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Literaturegeek Oh, I agree it's too big -- but it's recentism and not the BLP portion that's the problem -- and making the 2000 election its own subsection of a couple paras instead of a sub-sub-subsection would at least show it a bit more here towards the WP:LEAD notion of one should mention major parts of the article. At just 5 lines, the 2000 campaign here may just appear too little of the article to mention. Regardless, I think it good and valid to add a few words about 2000 into the lead just as I would mention numerous movie appearances and the WWE parts of his life. ("he appeared in numerous films, was a major host for WWE from 1988 to 2009, andin 2000 he sought nomination of the Reform party for President"). But I think the lead has its own SIZE issues. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:58, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Whistleblower Shenanigans?

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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: https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/27/intel-community-secretly-gutted-requirement-of-first-hand-whistleblower-knowledge/. It's not the only site noting the issue but is probably the best one. Fox News for instance has a clip here: https://video.foxnews.com/v/6090165259001/#sp=show-clips 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    人族, see: https://twitter.com/kpoulsen/status/1177734528833445888 soibangla (talk) 00:23, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    (1) False equivalency (2) Evidence? starship.paint (talk) 00:24, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Russiagate in lead

    This may have been discussed earlier, but apparently was not resolved. It is very strange that the "Russiagate" story that has dominated the first two years of Trump's presidency does not even get a passing mention in the lead section. Granted, there used to be a full paragraph about that with too much detail, but conversely I believe that it is a disservice to our readers to not mention it at all. In that spirit, I'd like to suggest the following summary of the affair:

    During his campaign, and in the first two years of his presidency, Trump and his entourage were accused of coordinating with Russia's efforts to interfere in the 2016 elections. A Special Counsel investigation resulted in criminal convictions for several Russian persons and companies, but found no evidence of cooperation by any American citizen. Trump was still suspected of obstructing justice, but the special prosecutor and the Justice Department declined to charge him.

    Comments welcome. — JFG talk 10:49, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe it was in the lead at one point. I would support something in the lead, but at no more than about half of the length proposed.- MrX 🖋 10:54, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That reads very close to what US Atty. General Barr would say. Nowhere near acceptable for any part of this article. Not to mention the "'suspected' but not prosecuted" SYNTH. Please propose NPOV text so we can discuss from a reasonable basis. SPECIFICO talk 12:20, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I agree that the proposed text is not a realistic summary of what actually happened. I would support "Trump and his cronies used a combination of obstruction and public opinion to change the narrative to make it look like his treason was no big deal." (only slightly joking here) -- Scjessey (talk) 14:52, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe my proposed text is more factual and neutral than yours, even setting aside the slightly joking tone. Non-joke improvements welcome, of course. — JFG talk 21:38, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You're going to need to share why you disagree with Scjessey and with me, because that's not very credible on its faces. Or even better, having considered the dissent, you could suggest a synthesis that addresses the identified flaws in your first attempt. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 23:20, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @JFG: You wrote that the "investigation resulted in criminal convictions for several Russian persons and companies" but when I look at the table in your wikilink the only convictions I can find were of American people. ~Awilley (talk) 00:16, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Awilley: You are correct, and the phrasing should be amended accordingly. I meant to say that Mueller found no willful participation into election interference by any American citizens, be they part of the Trump campaign or not. In parallel, the Mueller probe resulted in convictions of several Trump campaign members for criminal activities that were unrelated to the election, and thus should in my opinion be omitted from the lead of Trump's biography. Need to think more on an updated phrasing. — JFG talk 17:13, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    During his campaign and presidency, Trump and his entourage were accused of coordinating with Russia's efforts to interfere in the 2016 elections. A Special Counsel investigation did not find sufficient evidence to establish conspiracy or coordination with Russia. Trump was investigated on obstruction of justice but the special counsel neither indicted nor exonerated Trump. The Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General ruled there was insufficient evidence to indict Trump. starship.paint (talk) 15:44, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Not even "ruled". More like "declined to indict Trump" -- but that doesn't fully represent Barr's response. SPECIFICO talk 16:05, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    During his campaign and presidency, Trump and his entourage were accused of coordinating with Russia's efforts to interfere in the 2016 elections. A Special Counsel investigation did not find sufficient evidence to establish conspiracy or coordination with Russia. Trump was investigated on obstruction of justice but the special counsel neither indicted nor exonerated Trump. The Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General, both Trump appointees, declined to indict Trump. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:09, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Still too lengthy for my taste. How about:

    Trump and his entourage were accused of coordinating with Russia in its interference in the 2016 elections. A Special Counsel investigation failed to find sufficient evidence that Trump coordination with Russia, but declined to exonerate him for obstruction of justice, instead referring the matter to Congress.

    - MrX 🖋 10:35, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I think "failed" isn't quite right. The report says that their investigation into conspiracy was hobbled because evidence was concealed and destroyed. Also, there's plenty of evidence of coordination and even a narrative of collusion. It's only the crime of "conspiracy" that was not asserted in the report. So how about,

    Trump and his entourage were accused of complicity in the Russian interference in the 2016 election. A Special Counsel investigation was unable to discover sufficient evidence to charge Trump with conspiracy, however it declined to exonerate him for obstruction of justice and instead referred the evidence to Congress.

    Mueller stopped short of a "referral" to Congress, which would have been an explicit recommendation that Congress take action. He just spoke of other avenues of resolution. SPECIFICO talk 11:58, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @SPECIFICO: - "coordination" was also not established - We applied the term coordination in that sense when stating in the report that the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities. starship.paint (talk) 01:26, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    SPECIFICO's rewrite of my version looks good.- MrX 🖋 12:13, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cites don't go to LEAD if the LEAD is summarizing the body, but in the body for 'no collusion' we'd have Barrs words, Muellers words, the words of the coverage since Mueller report (NBC, Politifact, Wash Exminer, Vox...)so from April on the notion of 'collusion' seems a fringe conspiracy theory and one can say 'false' (or 'exonerated'). Cites speaking re the extensive coverage before that --- mm, the snark from NY Post and Fox comes to mind, but we can also go to RealClearPolitics, or use USAtoday for "endless" Russian collusion coverage, Washington Times on media obsession, etcetera. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 08:02, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um, gee. I didn't ask you to put your sourcing in the lead -- I was asking you here on talk to identify your sources.
    At any rate, it's very helpful that you have now done so. I would say that your list is a who's who and what's what of sources that goes from weakest-to-worst. Please read the mainstream reporting, discussion, and analysis of these matters (the kind of sources we use for WP references). I think it will go a long way to settling many of your concerns. SPECIFICO talk 11:38, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Markbassett: - please read the Mueller Report, by no means was "collusion" proven to be false because investigators did not ultimately have a complete picture of what happened. starship.paint (talk) 01:22, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    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.
    User:Starship.paint Read it long ago, thanks. It pretty much killed off “collusion” because it looked hard and found no conspiracy, no coordination, and all the Russian interference of social media campaign or hacking not thru or with anything Trump. (It never seemed very plausible anyway that a Russian secret op would want to include Trump - that would risk both secrecy and success - nor that Putin would share control.) The biggest effort possible to look everywhere feasible came up empty, so now “collusion” has moved into fringe conspiracy theory territory. Obstruction of justice not so much, but “collusion” yeah that’s said dead in normal press (usatoday, realclearpolitics, foxnews, nypost, msn op, Washington post op) and the more right wing media were snarking over it, YouTube parody tunes (to the tune day the music died), etcetera. Coverage has died off and there’s apparently nothing further coming... yeah, it’s dead. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:29, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    By the way, please cease referring to the Russian interference by the tongue in cheek "Russiagate", which insinuates a suggestion that narratives are overblown or refer to a conspiracy theory. SPECIFICO talk 12:02, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I have restored the section title "Russiagate in lead" as I originally wrote it. The term "Russiagate" to me does not insinuate anything: it is just an abridged descriptor for the 2016–2019 saga of Russian election interference, Trump campaign collusion accusations, his accusations of witch-hunting, the Mueller probe, convictions, report and conflicting interpretations thereof, just like "Brexit" is an abridged descriptor of the UK/EU withdrawal referendum, Article 50 negotiation process, British cabinet and parliament shenanigans, and still-in-doubt eventual outcome of the whole mess. I opened this discussion to determine how to briefly summarize this whole saga in the lead section, not to opine about narratives peddled by both sides of the controversy. — JFG talk 17:02, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Russia-gate is derived from Watergate and the latter is not considered a conspiracy theory.--MONGO (talk) 17:58, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Alos, not in favor of the word "entourage". Maybe "campaign staff" or similar?--MONGO (talk) 20:40, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    A descriptive phrasing would seem more serious and precise, and less ambiguous than an informal. "Russiagate" in here runs up against WP:LABEL cautions, and that it is used as right-wing term of snark for aconspiracy theory and/or democratic propaganda attack campaign as well as the sense of various late 2010s allegations about Trump and Russians - that they had blackmail material, or there was election conspiracy, etcetera. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:55, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    The Trump campaign was accused of complicity with Russian interference in the 2016 election that favored Trump. A Special Counsel investigation did not find sufficient evidence to establish conspiracy or coordination with Russia. Trump was also investigated for obstruction of justice, but was neither exonerated nor indicted.

    starship.paint (talk) 01:30, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm opposed to saying that he was not indicted. I also don't think "complicity" is the proper choice of words.- MrX 🖋 12:11, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    It is a mark of Trump's messaging success that everyone above is talking about "collusion", which isn't even a crime by strict definition, and so his constant drumbeat of "NO COLLUSION!" made it look like he was as innocent as a babe in the crib when, surprise surprise, there was no collusion. The shocking conclusion to the Mueller report was that, despite clear and obvious obstruction of justice, Barr declined to indict him for it (Mueller said he couldn't, which is why the initially proposed text doesn't work). -- Scjessey (talk) 13:36, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Three more proposals from me, because I'm unsure of the last part. starship.paint (talk) 03:08, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    (S1) A special counsel investigation found that Russian interference in the 2016 election favored Trump. Insufficient evidence was found to establish conspiracy or coordination between Russia and the Trump campaign. On obstruction of justice, the investigation did not exonerate Trump and referred the evidence to Congress.

    (S2) A special counsel investigation found that Russian interference in the 2016 election favored Trump. Insufficient evidence was found to establish conspiracy or coordination between Russia and the Trump campaign. On obstruction of justice, the investigation did not exonerate Trump, then the Attorney General deemed the evidence insufficient to charge Trump.

    (S1+S2) A special counsel investigation found that Russian interference in the 2016 election favored Trump. Insufficient evidence was found to establish conspiracy or coordination between Russia and the Trump campaign. On obstruction of justice, the investigation did not exonerate Trump, referring the evidence to Congress. The Attorney General deemed the evidence insufficient to charge Trump.

    @Starship.paint: I think that third option (S1+S2) perfectly and neutrally encapsulates exactly what happened concisely, and I would wholeheartedly support its inclusion. Very well done. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:59, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    How is that better than the X-SPECIFICO version,

    Trump and his entourage were accused of complicity in the Russian interference in the 2016 election. A Special Counsel investigation did not find sufficient evidence to charge Trump with conspiracy, however it declined to exonerate him for obstruction of justice and instead referred the evidence to Congress.

    ? SPECIFICO talk 14:05, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @SPECIFICO: - “complicity” is a bit iffy. It’s not what was investigated. People might very well propose “collusion”, which also was not investigated. Putting “conspiracy” would be repetitive. Your version also does not mention interference favouring Trump, coordination, and it does not mention Trump wasn’t charged. starship.paint (talk) 14:40, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I just think Starship.paint's version is more concise, more neutral and less likely to be challenged. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:20, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to be bold and add my latest version to the lede. Let's see if it's contested. @MrX:, informing you because you said opposed to saying that he was not indicted. starship.paint (talk) 02:24, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I have amended this edit to something based on your first version which was more concise, and in my opinion also clearer. Events are described in the correct order: first Russian interference, then accusations of "collusion" or whatever it is called, then the Mueller probe, then the obstruction claims, and finally Mueller's "can't indict and can't exonerate" outcome. Here's my update:

    Members of the Trump 2016 campaign were suspected of being complicit in Russian election interference that favored Trump, but a special counsel investigation did not find sufficient evidence to establish conspiracy or coordination with Russia. Trump was also personally investigated for obstruction of justice, and was neither indicted nor exonerated.

    — JFG talk 12:55, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I think what you meant to say was

    Members of the Trump 2016 campaign were suspected of being complicit in the Russian election interference that favored Trump. A Special Counsel investigation did not find sufficient evidence to charge criminal behavior in this regard. Trump was also investigated personally for obstruction of justice, and was neither indicted nor exonerated.

    Also, it's better not to use talk page language like "'collusion' or whatever it is called", because the false equivalence of collusion with defined criminal behavior has been Trump's principal talking point on the matter. SPECIFICO talk 13:39, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant what I wrote, and not what you think I meant, but I think you do mean what you say I may have meant, if you know what I mean.[FBDB] Besides, there is no collusion in my proposed text. Let's see what our fellow editors say. — JFG talk 14:13, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Aside from your Dr. Seuss imitation, do I really need to respond to the straw man suggestion that I misrepresented your article text? You insinuated the No Collusion bit in your talk page comment above. SPECIFICO talk 14:22, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    JFG, if Trump was cleared of any involvement in a conspiracy with Russia, it tells us that...uhm...a theory was put forth that Trump had conspired with Russia. As far as I know, a theory is a theory, and conspiring with Russia makes it a conspiracy so it would be accurate to summarize the Russian collusion allegation as a debunked Trump-Russia conspiracy theory. Atsme Talk 📧 04:50, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That's of course absolutely backwards. There was a conspiracy theory that was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, despite plentiful evidence supporting it. It was not debunked. The Mueller report does not say "no collusion." It says, here is the evidence we found for collusion, which wasn't enough to prosecute (and, we couldn't prosecute because of DOJ guidance on charging a sitting president). Either way, the reliable sources don't say it is a "debunked conspiracy theory." So please, please, stick to the sources. PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 05:02, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Atsme - things are not debunked when investigators did not have a complete picture of the activities undertaken by subjects of the investigation. Please read the "Mueller Report quotes" in the light green box I provided above. starship.paint (talk) 07:25, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    "The investigation led by Robert S. Mueller III found no evidence that President Trump or any of his aides coordinated with the Russian government’s 2016 election interference, according to a summary of the special counsel’s key findings made public on Sunday by Attorney General William P. Barr." Citing NYTimes.

    It isn't about what you or I think - it's about what RS say, and the Times is a RS in this instance. We use in-line attribution, and we don't theorize or editorialize what we think it means, which should end all arguments about the outcome. In the US, when there is no evidence and a conclusion has been reached, the person is found not guilty. I'm not sure how that works in other places in the world, but we are talking about a US incident and that is how we should present it. Atsme Talk 📧 14:40, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Atsme and Starship Paint: FYI. William Barr's summary letter was debunked the moment the heavily redacted Mueller Report came out and even that report, heavily redacted as it was, was a whitewash attempt. The Barr summary absolved Trump of absolutely nothing because it is false and misleading, and I repeat there was never a charge of collusion, the word collusion has been inserted into the discussion by Trump and his loyal followers as a distraction, a red herring. As regards conspiracy theories. Trump called out to the Russians in plain sight. “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” . That is an explicit invitation to a (hostile) foreign power to interfere in our election, and he doesn't stop, he admitted that he would continue to do so in an interview with George Stephanopolous, and last week he and his administration reached out to China, Australia, Italy and knows what else to elicit dirt on Joe Biden. These are not conspiracy theories, but overt acts and facts.Oldperson (talk) 16:00, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Oldperson - debunked[by whom?] Diffs? Atsme Talk 📧 18:12, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Atsme and Starship Paint:Debunked by the release of the Mueller report which debunked Wm Barr's "summary" which is what you appear to rely on. Wm Barr perpetuated a fraud, to taint the Mueller report before it's release and apparently considering responses like yours (and you are not alone),it was successful at least in cult of Trump circles.Oldperson (talk) 18:44, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I requested diffs, not OR or a personal interpretation of the summary. Atsme Talk 📧 20:35, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Atsme: - I don't have diffs but I have sources. You should really read the Mueller Report. Also, I will again point


    starship.paint (talk) 00:25, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Barr letter versus Mueller Report

    New York Times

    Barr ... quoted several fragments of Mr. Mueller’s then-secret report. But none of the excerpts were in context or even complete sentences, raising the question of whether he was portraying their thrust and tone accurately or skewing them to make them sound better for President Trump.

    Mr. Barr omitted words suggesting that there was complicit conduct that fell short of “coordination” ... Mr. Barr took a larger passage in which the Mueller report suggested that the Trump campaign and the Russian government were knowingly dancing together at a distance, and then excerpted a fragment to make it look like a cleaner exoneration ...

    Similarly, Mr. Barr truncated the special counsel explanation of what “coordination” meant — and didn’t mean ... In the second sentence, which Mr. Barr omitted, Mr. Mueller again emphasized that there can be a type of complicit conduct that falls short of how the special counsel defined coordination.

    -

    Washington Post

    As it turns out, in some cases, Barr’s characterizations were incomplete or misleading. The Mueller report is more damning of Trump than the attorney general indicated ...

    Left out was a key statement from Mueller that came right before what Barr quoted in his letter ... "that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts" ... Expecting to benefit may not be the same as actively cooperating, but the omission in Barr’s letter is significant nonetheless. The full sentence from Mueller casts a different, less flattering light on the Trump campaign than Barr’s letter indicated. In short, Russia wanted Trump to win, and Trump campaign members were aware that they would reap an advantage from the “information stolen and released through Russian efforts.” ...

    Barr at some points in his news conference used the word “collusion,” which is not a legal term for a crime ...

    Trump Tower ... meeting posed “difficult statutory and constitutional questions,” Mueller said in the report, but his office “ultimately concluded that, even if the principal legal questions were resolved favorably to the government, a prosecution would encounter difficulties proving that Campaign officials or individuals connected to the Campaign willfully violated the law.” (Emphasis on “willfully.”)

    -

    New Yorker

    The events since Barr’s letter have incinerated whatever remains of his credibility. The famously tight-lipped Mueller team told several news outlets the letter had minimized Trump’s culpability ... Then he broke precedent by scheduling a press conference to spin the report in advance of its redacted publication ... Barr acted like Trump’s defense lawyer, the job he had initially sought, rather than as an attorney general. His aggressive spin seemed designed to work in the maximal number of repetitions of the “no collusion” mantra, in accordance with his boss’s talking points, at the expense of any faithful transmission of the special counsel’s report.

    Barr’s letter had made it sound as though Trump’s campaign spurned Russia’s offers of help: “The Special Counsel did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign,” he wrote. In fact, Mueller’s report concluded, “In some instances, the Campaign was receptive to the offer,” but that the cooperation fell short of criminal conduct.

    -

    Politico


    Now that we have seen almost the entire report of more than 400 pages, we know Barr intentionally misled the American people about Mueller’s findings and his legal reasoning. As a former federal prosecutor, when I look at Mueller’s work, I don’t see a murky set of facts. I see a case meticulously laid out by a prosecutor who knew he was not allowed to bring it.

    -

    Intercept

    The differences between Barr’s statements before the report’s release and the contents of the actual report were so striking that the New York Times did a whole story comparing, side-by-side, Barr’s statements and the report.

    Barr’s statements prior to the release of the report, however, were also misleading when it came to the issues of Trump and Russian interference in the election. Barr discussed but did not linger on the portion of the report about the Russian cyberattacks against Hillary Clinton’s campaign — attacks that were designed to help Trump win the election. And Barr was disingenuous in the way he sought to cut and parse Mueller’s report to make Trump look better on issues related to contacts and links between the Trump campaign and Russia.

    In fact, the Mueller report’s findings on contacts between the Trump circle and Russia are extensive and damning. The report does not exonerate Trump or his campaign; instead, Mueller says he didn’t have enough evidence to bring criminal charges for conspiring with the Russians. The report states that “while the investigation identified numerous links between individuals with ties to the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign, the evidence was not sufficient to support criminal charges. Among other things, the evidence was not sufficient to charge any Campaign official as an unregistered agent of the Russian government or other Russian principal.”

    “Further,” the report adds, “the evidence was not sufficient to charge that any member of the Trump Campaign conspired with representatives of the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election.” But the report went on to say that the “investigation established that several individuals affiliated with the Trump Campaign lied to [Mueller’s team] and to Congress, about their interactions with Russian-affiliated individuals and related matters. Those lies materially impaired the investigation of Russian election interference.”

    Far from vindicating Trump, the Mueller report leaves plenty of troubling questions unresolved for Congress and the press to investigate. Above all, the report shows that the Russians interfered in the election to help Trump win, and Trump was happy for the help.

    @Atsme: - of course you would cite a source reporting on the Barr letter in March 2019, before the Mueller Report was released in April 2019. At that point in time, your reliable source had not read the actual Mueller Report. It is an outdated source. You’re the one theorizing/editorializing that things are debunked conspiracy theories. Not charged does not mean no criminal activity occurred. Nobody knows if criminal activity really occurred. Here’s the sources after the Mueller Report was released. starship.paint (talk) 16:16, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Sources
    • Associated Press, in May 2019: This refrain about the Mueller report stating there was no collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign is wrong
    • Associated Press in June 2019: Allegations of “collusion” were not “proven false” in the Mueller investigation, nor was the issue of “collusion” addressed in the report. The Mueller report said the investigation did not find a criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia, saying it had not collected sufficient evidence “to establish” or sustain criminal charges. The report noted that some Trump campaign officials had declined to testify under the 5th Amendment or had provided false or incomplete testimony, making it difficult to get a complete picture of what happened during the 2016 campaign. The special counsel wrote that he “cannot rule out the possibility” that unavailable information could have cast a different light on the investigation’s findings. The report also makes clear the investigation did not assess whether “collusion” occurred because it is not a legal term. The investigation found multiple contacts between the Trump campaign and Russia, and the report said it established that “the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts.
    • CNN in May 2019: Volume I of Mueller's report does not say there was "no collusion" or "no evidence" of collusion. The conclusions were more nuanced than that. As Mueller explained on Wednesday, the investigation found "insufficient evidence" to charge a conspiracy with Russia. In his new conference, Mueller said out loud what was carefully written in his sweeping report: "The first volume of the report details numerous efforts emanating from Russia to influence the election. This volume includes a discussion of the Trump campaign's response to this activity, as well as our conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy." Obviously, "insufficient evidence" is different from "no evidence." To be crystal clear, the investigation did not establish a criminal conspiracy between Trump aides and the Kremlin. But Trump is whitewashing the collusion-related evidence that Mueller documented in Volume I. The special counsel found "multiple links" between Trump's campaign and Russian agents. He found that top people in Trump's orbit were "receptive" to offers of Russian help with the election. And he found that the campaign "expected it would benefit electorally" from illegal Russian interference.

    No, I cited a RS that published what US Attorney General William Barr presented. Here's another one from the BBC: The report stated that no evidence of a conspiracy was found,... If we are going to consider partisan opinion and journalistic speculation as DUE, then we have a lot of work to do updating all the BLP's of former presidents. Barr's statement is an official statement - like it or not - it is not a journalistic interpretation of the law, much less partisan speculation that proves nothing and provides zero evidence of collusion. The result of the 2 year, million+ dollar investigation is that there was no collusion, and that is a fact. Trump's rhetoric did not qualify as collusion, and neither does being receptive. If the latter was all that's needed to be guilty of collusion (whatever that might be), then Adam Schiff's receptiveness during a phone call from a Russian prankster qualifies as Russian collusion. It's time to drop the stick. Atsme Talk 📧 20:17, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    There are copious RS saying that the "Barr summary" was not accurate to the report, it is an outdated source. The Barr summary doesn't get to determine what's in the lede of this article. That would be ridiculous. Barr is a partisan, he is considered more Trump's personal lawyer than an agent of the US gov't and the constitution. Please, do a little reading and research on the more recent RS or I would be happy to provide many. "No collusion" as the outcome of the report, is Trump's line, not the RS source line. PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 21:24, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Atsme: - did you read my post? Did you read the sources I presented? Associated Press, in May 2019: This refrain about the Mueller report stating there was no collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign is wrong. You: the result of the 2 year, million+ dollar investigation is that there was no collusion, and that is a fact. The Associated Press article was not an opinion piece, and the Associated Press is known for one of the most neutral media organizations. Barr is known for being partisan. You dare to tell me that Barr's statement is official, but when I already posted quotes of the actual Mueller Report above and I even pointed them out to you, you still stated that I was theorizing or editorializing. Please reflect on your own behaviour. Meanwhile, here is what Mueller wrote [4] about the Barr letter: it did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this office's work and conclusions. starship.paint (talk) 00:18, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    "Establish facts" vs. "prosecute crimes"

    In this diff [5], an editor has reverted an improvement to the article text that describes the outcome of the Mueller investigation. The diff reinstates the vague wording that states the Special Counsel did not find evidence to "establish" guilt. I had recently tweaked that to replace "establish" with the clearer wording that there was not sufficient evidence to "prosecute".

    The US does not operate under Napoleonic Law. It is not the role of a prosecutor in the USA to "establish" criminal behavior. The State charges a crime by bringing an indictment, the facts of which are then decided by the jury. As Attorney General Barr made clear upon receipt of the report, Mueller was acting as prosecutor, not a fact-finding commission such as the Warren Commissionor the 9-11 Commission, which were charged with establishing factual narratives. Again, to be specific with respect to the weasel-word "establish", Mueller's report states

    ...After considering the available evidence, the Office did not pursue charges under these statutes...

    . It's unfortunate that my clarification of the wording was reverted with no substantive objection to the improvement itself. I will reinstate the reverted wording, unless someone has a better way to clarify this point in the article? SPECIFICO talk 15:03, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I support Starship and Specifico's comments above. PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 17:45, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @PunxtawneyPickle: Are you in the right section? Starship has not commented in this one. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:54, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a subsection of the section where he commented. If you wish I can clarify that I agree with Specifico and, the earlier comments made in above section, by Starship which are similar and have a similar point. I apologize for any confusion. PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 18:23, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @PunxtawneyPickle: How about clarifying your position, if any, on this edit, which is the topic of this subsection? ―Mandruss ☎ 18:28, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not a lawyer and I don't know what kind of legal regime the United States is in pertaining to "establish" versus "did not prosecute," but the sources tell us that Mueller's report says he could not prosecute Trump for obstruction. On the issue of collusion he stated that his investigation was obstructed by the Trump administration, and offers a very lengthy case of evidence that provides a roadmap to further investigation of the issues presented by Congress, or, perhaps, courts. "Did not prosecute" is an accurate description of the sequence of events laid out. "Did not establish" opens a Can of Worms that we needn't enter, in my view. PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 21:20, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    May His Shadow Fall Upon YouTwo items here. Collusion is not mentioned as a crime or grounds for impeachment, and Mueller did not investigate DJT for collusion. He did find grounds for conspiracy. Trump introduced the word collusion into the frey as a distraction. Mueller claimed that he was forbidden by a (ridiculous) "Office of Legal Counsel" memo to charging Trump with a crime, he left such proceedings up to the Congress. The Office of Legal Council is the Justice Department, that Memo has no foundation in law, or the constitution, it was written (I believe)by the current Attorney General of the United States either during or after the Nixon affair. It really has no legal standing and Idon't understand, it is simply one man's opinion, why the Congress has not challenged it(nor why they let witnesses get away with contempt, if they were investigating the Mafia, contemmpt would be answered with jail).Oldperson (talk) 21:34, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @PunxtawneyPickle:I forgot to ping you to the above edit of mine. Actually I was responding to you, but missed your user name.Oldperson (talk) 21:40, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I more or less agree with you, but I would say that "collusion" is just the colloquial term for "conspiracy" and is being used as such here. I agree we shouldn't use that word in the article as it is inexact. PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 22:21, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    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.

    In this investigation, the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference.

    - Mueller Report 1 2

    Mueller tried to establish findings to determine if there was an underlying crime during Trump’s alleged obstruction of justice, although an underlying crime is not needed for obstruction of justice anyway. Let us also remember that Mueller is hardly a traditional prosecutor, he would have exonerated Trump if the evidence pointed to that, and he wouldn’t even accuse Trump of a crime. starship.paint (talk) 00:34, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    For the sake of NPOV, I don't see any reason we cannot use in-text attribution stating: "Special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation did not find sufficient evidence that President Donald Trump’s campaign coordinated with Russia to influence the United States’ 2016 election and did not take a clear position on whether Trump obstructed justice." Cites to ABA, and I cannot think of a better source to summarize the Mueller conclusion (which is a legal decision) without bias. That result is corroborated by multiple RS including the BBC. Anything beyond what that summary states is too much detail. And since WP:RECENTISM has a tendency to make material subject to removal or updating, we need to connect the players in that investigation to the claims that were made and the firings that resulted because of obvious bias, an illicit affiar, and the connection between FBI and Fusion GPS involving the investigation. The ongoing investigations by Barr and the new information that's turning up such as that recently published by WaPo is going to change the landscape anyway, so we might as well do it right the first time. Atsme Talk 📧 18:49, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I strongly disagree with your claims and analysis. The March 2019 sources you are citing are old and inaccurate. They have been superseded by different info. The BBC and ABA sources are unusable for this reason. The 10-5 WaPo article you cite, is way too recent, and doesn't say what you claim it says. PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 19:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oldperson: - this explains my revert. I have provided sources above, CTRL-F Barr letter versus Mueller Report - that establish why March 2019 sources such as the ABA absolutely cannot be used because the Barr letter is misleading. Let us also remember that Mueller himself wrote that [6] the Barr letter did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this office's work and conclusions. starship.paint (talk) 00:26, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The bolded part of the Mueller Report quote above fully supports the article text I originally inserted: a special counsel investigation did not find sufficient evidence to establish conspiracy or coordination with Russia. Accordingly, I will revert to this version. — JFG talk 22:28, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Sentence about the Ukraine/Biden controversy

    Earlier today I replaced the lead's last sentence that said:

    In September 2019, following a whistleblower complaint alleging a widespread abuse of power and a cover-up by Trump, a formal impeachment inquiry was initiated in the U.S. House of Representatives.

    with the clearer:

    In September 2019, following a whistleblower complaint alleging that Trump abused his power to pressure Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky into investigating the activities of Joe Biden's son Hunter, the House of Representatives launched an impeachment inquiry.

    My edit summary was: "Rephrase impeachment sentence; active voice; mention Ukraine and Biden so that readers get a clue of what the alleged abuse of power is about." SPECIFICO later reverted to the original text, stating: "Restore text to clear statement. Newer version refers to abuse of non-existent Presidential "power to pressure"." In response to the possible confusing grammar around the passage "abused his power to pressure Ukrainian President", I would suggest simplifying the proposal with:

    In September 2019, following a whistleblower complaint alleging that Trump pressured Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky into investigating the activities of Joe Biden's son Hunter, the House of Representatives launched an impeachment inquiry for abuse of power.

    Contrary to my learned colleague's assertion, I do believe stating what the controversy is about is much clearer than letting the reader guess what "widespread abuse of power" we are talking about. Comments welcome. — JFG talk 21:48, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    We're trying to condense an entire complicated controversy into one sentence, resulting in an unacceptably long and cumbersome sentence. Readability must come first. I think we're forced to go to two sentences or strip it down to the absolute bare essentials. I submit that the lead could do without "whistleblower complaint" and Zelensky's name. Also, saying that he "pressured Zelensky into investigating" implies that his pressure was successful. And finally, "an impeachment inquiry for abuse of power" seems awkward and unnatural to my ear. I suggest:

    In September 2019, following allegations that Trump abused his power by pressuring the president of Ukraine to investigate the activities of Joe Biden's son Hunter, the House of Representatives launched an impeachment inquiry.

    ―Mandruss ☎ 22:17, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I slightly prefer the shorter version for reasons of brevity. That said, this is not the Ukraine/Biden controversy. It's the Trump-Ukraine controversy and impeachment inquiry. - MrX 🖋 22:20, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I was about to remove Hunter's name as well – I think "Joe Biden's son" is sufficient for the lead, readers are unlikely to go away with the false impression that Biden has only one son, and as MrX said this is not about Biden–Ukraine – but I won't since there is a subsequent comment. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:27, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree the shorter proposals are better, but I'm uneasy saying Trump's goal was an "investigation", when his goal was the origination of derogatory narratives without regard to fact or circumstance and needing no investigation for their fabrication. I know it's hard to believe, but that's what was going on. SPECIFICO talk 23:30, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I cannot support a version that omits the cover-up which is an equal, if not greater, concern in the impeachment as it was with Nixon. If we want to add detail, that's fine, but we should not remove anything from the version at the top of this section.- MrX 🖋 10:24, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    In addition to using active voice, why not put the independent clause at the beginning of the sentence?

    In September 2019, the House of Representatives launched an impeachment inquiry after a whistleblower alleged that Trump had pressured a foreign government to investigate a political rival.

    This also excludes all names. While "a political rival" could be replaced with "Joe Biden and his son Hunter" I think the former might be more informative to the casual reader. ~Awilley (talk) 23:56, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Should probably describe Trump's side of the vaguely-proposed deal. "Offered Ukraine missile launchers" is about as wordy as "pressured a foreign government", just says a lot more. Maybe "military aid" is reasonably vague for the lead, but I think Ukraine is generally recognizable to casuals worldwide, unlike these Bidens (especially the new guy). InedibleHulk (talk) 05:56, September 29, 2019 (UTC)
    @Awilley: The active voice and independent clause are good. Omitting that there was a cover up is a non-starter for me.- MrX 🖋 10:18, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    ETA: I would support any of the following:

    In September 2019, a formal impeachment inquiry was initiated in the U.S. House of Representatives after a whistleblower complaint alleging a widespread abuse of power and a cover-up by Trump.

    or

    A formal impeachment inquiry was initiated in the U.S. House of Representatives in September 2019 after a whistleblower complaint alleging a widespread abuse of power and a cover-up by Trump.

    or

    In September 2019, a formal impeachment inquiry was initiated in the U.S. House of Representatives after a whistleblower complaint alleging a widespread abuse of power and a cover-up by Trump. According to the complaint and a transcript of a call with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky, Trump attempted to offer Ukraine missile launchers in exchange for a "favor" in which Zelensky's government would investigate Joe Biden, a 2020 presidential candidate, and his son.

    - MrX 🖋 10:45, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Déjà vu all over again. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:03, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Ugh, passive voice. 2. Does the whistleblower document actually use the term "widespread abuse of power"? ~Awilley (talk) 17:24, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless used too frequently, Awilley, passive voice is a perfectly fine writing style. lol "Widespread" is from the original wording that the lead material was derived from. The whistleblower complaint says "a serious or flagrant problem, abuse, or violation of law or Executive Order", but we can just shorten it to "abuse of power" which is widely reported. Perhaps something along these lines:

    In September 2019, the U.S. House of Representatives initiated a formal impeachment inquiry against Trump after a whistleblower complaint alleged abuse of power and a cover-up by Trump.

    - MrX 🖋 17:58, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    We do not need to say "alleged". A "complaint" is an allegation.

    In September 2019, shortly after it learned of a whistleblower complaint that detailed widespread abuse of power and a cover-up by Trump, the U.S. House of Representatives launched a formal impeachment investigation .

    SPECIFICO talk 13:47, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a bit on the nose. I think it might be a tough sell.- MrX 🖋 17:59, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, let's you put it in the article and see whether anyone objects. BRD. If so they'll give us some detail as to their alleged concern. SPECIFICO talk 21:07, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure. Hold my beer. - MrX 🖋 21:27, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm concerned that "widespread abuse of power" is 100 times too vague to describe one particular missiles-for-dirt proposal between two well-publicized and democratically-elected heads of state. Who else should the people entrust to top-level manage international military and intelligence affairs? I also don't understand to what "cover-up by Trump" refers, but that could well be my fault for not digging deep enough. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:34, September 30, 2019 (UTC)
    The abuse of power was Trump using military aid as a giant carrot in return for a "favor" of investigating the Bidens. That's clear from the transcript, the whistleblower complaint, and the reporting on all this. The cover-up relates to trying to hide the transcript on a secure server, as well as the machinations of the White House, Giuliani, Barr, Pompeo and others to avoid scrutiny.- MrX 🖋 10:54, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Didn't see this, sorry for asking below. Haven't American presidents normally dangled aid to desperate nations, though? Seems the conflict of interest is the scandalous thing here, not any kind of overreaching. Trump didn't secure those leaky national documents, his national security assistant did. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:40, September 30, 2019 (UTC)
    Yes, it's OK as long as the favor accrues to the United States, and not to an elected official's political benefit.- MrX 🖋 13:15, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Hard to say who benefits untill the dirt comes up. If there actually is something destructive to Biden's popularity, the voters should know before they get conned into overlooking it. It's not like Trump really gains that much by eliminating one low-risk candidate and helping take back Crimea; still all of the remaining Caucasus and caucuses to personally worry about. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:52, September 30, 2019 (UTC)
    I can only assume that was meant to be sarcastic? Trump personally benefits hugely by eliminating the leading (currently) candidate opposing him in the next election. And if he did withhold assistance from Ukraine, he would still benefit from effectively assisting the Russian invasion of Crimea, those same Russians that actively supported his 2016 election and are actively supporting his 2020 reelection. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:00, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nobody's currrently opposing Trump among Democrats, they're fighting each other still. If Biden advances, this supposed bombshell could be huge for the Republican contender. But not yet. Ukraine got its aid back already, didn't it? Trump could have all the foreign support in the world and as long as only Americans vote, I don't see the problem. Maybe all American politicians couid have foreign support if they were friendlier with world leaders. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:28, September 30, 2019 (UTC)
    I think I've summed it up in a short, sweet sentence that anyone can understand without knowing a thing about Biden and Ukraine. One needs actual ammo, one would be compromised by political ammo. Self-evident conflict of interest, even if all the names were switched or blanked, perfect for beginners (in my biased opinion, of course). Can't paste it here, though. If someone thinks it should be, feel free. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:11, September 30, 2019 (UTC)
    Hulk's short, sweet, inedible sentence:

    In September 2019, after a whistleblower alleged Trump sought to trade military aid with Ukraine for political dirt on presidential candidate Joe Biden, the U.S. House of Representatives initiated a formal impeachment inquiry.

    ―Mandruss ☎ 09:31, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This doesn't quite do it fo me, and I see its made its way into the lead already. Trump did not just seek a trade. He pressured Zelensky using his disproportionate power. "Political dirt" is a bit vernacular for an encyclopedia lead. My largest concern is that this sidesteps "abuse of power" and "cover up", which are central to the topic.- MrX 🖋 10:47, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Trading always involves pressure, and one side always has leverage. Here, it goes without saying; Ukraine needs war goods more than America needs yet another reason to disapprove of an old white rich male candidate. "Dirt" is mainstream enough, especially since Trump took executive power, but I could go for something "exotic" like kompromat, too. What is Trump hiding, and which power was "abused" (not rhetorical questions)? InedibleHulk (talk) 11:22, September 30, 2019 (UTC)
    Trump was (allegedly) hiding the record of the telephone discussion. The power abused is the power of the office of President. Everyone should read the complaint.[7] I've built off of your edit, adjusting to active voice and adding the cover up angle:

    In September 2019, the U.S. House of Representatives initiated a formal impeachment inquiry against Trump after a whistleblower alleged Trump abused his power by seeking to trade military aid with Ukraine for political dirt on presidential candidate Joe Biden, and then tried to cover it up.

    - MrX 🖋 11:36, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems fair enough, I suppose. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:43, September 30, 2019 (UTC)
    The focus of the sentence doesn't seem right. The whistleblower complaint drew attention to the problem and that led to the release of the "transcript" by the White House. It was that "transcript" which sparked the formal impeachment inquiry, because Trump's own words were damning enough, even without the whistleblower's "color commentary" (for want of a better term). Trump has tried to make it all about the whistleblower, because it is easier to attack that person than defend his indefensible actions. This proposed sentence seems to play into Trump's preferred narrative by putting too much of the focus on the whistleblower. I'm going to post this response and then try to come up with an alternative. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:54, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with your second and third sentences about the sequence of events, but I don't think we should emphasize the cause. Technically, the decision to pursue impeachment came prior to public release of the transcript. We don't know if the transcript was leaked to Nancy Pelosi beforehand, although that's a reasonable assumption. Scjessey, do want to propose alternative wording?- MrX 🖋 14:35, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I just got back from having root canal surgery and I can't think straight at the moment. I will try to look at it a bit later. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:15, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If I recall correctly, and I am sure that I do. There is no impeachment proceedings, yet. Jerry Nadler started an impeachment inquiry. Nancy Pelosi refused to commit, UNTIL the release of the transcript by the whistle blower. She has only committed to what Jerry Nadler has started, an impeachment inquiry. If sufficient evidence for a proceeding is acquired (the famous "road map to impeachment developed for Nixon) then she might gavel in an impeachment proceeding. Whether anything was leaked to Nancy Pelosi aforehead is irrelevant. However there is no reason to think that it was, she got her hand on the transcript of DJT's call to the Ukranian president at the same time as Nadler, and did not commit to an inquiry until then. An inquiry compiles evidence, which is then brought before Congress, debated and voted on, then it is sent to the Senate for trial, where it DJT will be found innocent by the Republican controlled Senate.Oldperson (talk) 18:33, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Mandruss had the best phrasing. Partly - the whistleblower complaint didn’t allege ‘widespread’, it alleged a specific. So “widespread” is both vague and incorrect. And the whistleblower complaint mention of concealment is part of or supporting evidence of that abuse, so just abuse includes it — cover-up would imply actions after investigations start, which would mean after the whistleblower complaint and not something it could include. Also, it’s ‘Biden and his son’ in the complaint. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:12, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    In September 2019, the U.S. House of Representatives initiated a formal impeachment inquiry against Trump regarding abuse of office for political gain in the Trump–Ukraine controversy. Trump in July 2019 requested Ukraine investigate rival 2020 presidential candidate Joe Biden, while a whistleblower alleged that this was part of a wider pressure campaign on Ukraine, and that the White House had tried to cover up Trump's request.

    starship.paint (talk) 02:36, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I removed "rival" and changed "gain" to "purposes". Biden, though an early favourite in opinion polling, has not won the opportunity to rival Trump yet, and may never. If he does, then his loss is Trump's gain. But during the still-young donkey melee phase of American democracy, his loss is currently and seemingly best for Warren. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:00, October 2, 2019 (UTC)
    Close, but still think Mandruss a bit better, a bit simpler. Perhaps

    In September 2019, following a whistleblower allegation that Trump had pressured the president of Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and his son Hunter, the House of Representatives launched an Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump.

    . Just identify the topic, put details below or in linked articles. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:54, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    At this point, with all that has happened, I don't think that's quite sufficient. This is fast moving target, so it's difficult to pin down a version that accurately captures the major points. I think we need to say something about how Trump doubled down by publicly asking Ukraine and China to investigate Biden, and how the State Department was manipulated by Trump's personal lawyer for Trump's political gain.- MrX 🖋 11:41, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks everybody. I have amended the wording and added relevant wikilinks. Here's my version:

    Separately, in September 2019, the House of Representatives initiated an impeachment inquiry alleging abuse of office for political gain. In July 2019, Trump had asked Ukraine to investigate the son of former Vice President Joe Biden, a potential rival presidential candidate for 2020, and a whistleblower alleged that the White House had tried to cover up Trump's request.

    Keep tweaking as this develops… — JFG talk 13:37, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    That wording leaves the impression there was a vote by the House. There was no vote. And let's not forget Schiff lied which needs to be included. In fact, the impeachment inquiry is being debated. For example: The top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, Georgia Rep. Doug Collins, has emphasized that in his view, Pelosi's statements about impeachment carry no legal weight on their own. Let's get the article right. Atsme Talk 📧 19:05, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    "Schiff lied" is not a statement that in any stretch, even if it were accurate, belongs in this article. The House initiated an impeachment inquiry does not imply there having been a floor vote - the impeachment inquiry is not being "debated," the impeachment inquiry was begun by the Judiciary Committee. And of course, there's no way that this article should reflect Doug Collins' personal point of view any more than it should reflect Barr's point of view. I am very concerned about your comments. Why would we uncritically reflect partisan statements of Collins or Barr, any more than we would uncritically report what Schiff or Pelosi or Nadler said about Trump? PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 19:19, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    {{ping|PunxtawneyPickle|Atsme))WP acknownledges reality by acknowledging that editors have, in some instances, POV's. However they are suppose to edit in a neutral fashion. Claiming that Schiff lied, when there is absolutely no evidence or RS to support such a statement is demonstrable proof that said editor has stepped over the bounds and undeniably demonstrated his POV and bias. It would be different if there was a RS to support the statement.Oldperson (talk) 20:05, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    weasel words in impeachment section

    Left them in place pending discussion in case this is contentious. But: "downplaying his concern about Russian interference in US elections" ???? Makes it sound like he was concerned but chose to be tactful, whereas he in fact said he really did not care.[1]

    References

    1. ^ By Shane Harris; Josh Dawsey; Ellen Nakashima (September 27, 2019). "Trump told Russian officials in 2017 he wasn't concerned about Moscow's interference in U.S. election". Washington Post.

    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinruby (talk • contribs) 22:22, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • That one downplay a concern to the point where one says or pretends it's not a concern isn't a crazy thought. Drmies (talk) 00:08, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Nor is it a thought offered by the source, though. I'm no psychoanalyst, but whichever of this one story's three writers handled the lead seems to suggest Trump was unconcerned because this stuff normally had been easily brushed off. He may have reasonably assumed the press would have bigger things to cover, as it had since McCarthy's day. Funny how it looks foolish in hindsight, but at the time, I think most ordinary observers expected the lying, racism, isolationism, bloopers and sex abuse to be the top concerns, mixed in with non-presidential news. Anybody really see this much Russian hysteria coming back strong in 2017? InedibleHulk (talk) 08:05, September 29, 2019 (UTC)
    I changed it to "expressed disconcern". Noted when it happened, to whom. Almost changed "interference" to "efforts to promote democracy and good governance", but resisted the urge for brevity's sake. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:47, September 29, 2019 (UTC)
    @InedibleHulk: AFAICT "disconcern" is not a word in the English language, outside of urbandictionary.com. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:16, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Mandruss I looked it up, and you are right, disconcern is not a word, as seen here. Disconcert however, is a word, as in The businessman was disconcerted when his train arrived late. Mgasparin (talk) 01:09, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, I did the same, which is why I said AFAICT instead of AFAIK. :) ―Mandruss ☎ 01:13, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed to "unconcern". "Disconcern" still looks and sounds better to me. But yeah, English Wikipedia deserves English words. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:31, September 30, 2019 (UTC)
    Keep your eyes peeled for stories actually relaying what he said. If they exist, they'd be more useful here than three writers summarizing the overall takeaway of three anons. Part of me highly doubts Trump calls the hubbub "Russian interference", especially directly to official guests from Moscow. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:42, September 30, 2019 (UTC)
    Removed the bit about "misuse" of data security systems to "hide" transcripts. It only seems crooked to the sort who want to leak such stuff anonymously, and reporters who depend on these loose-lipped shipsinkers. In any case, John Eisenberg made the call, not Trump, so if any bio deserves garbled scolding, it's that guy's. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:16, September 30, 2019 (UTC)

    U.S. military aid to Ukraine

    Here's my suggestion for how to improve the article - diff.

    The Ukrainian government didn’t know that Trump administration froze military aid to the country until a month after the Trump-Zelensky phone call.[1]

    The military assistance to Ukraine has expanded since Trump took office.[2]

    References

    1. ^ "Trump Said to Have Frozen Aid to Ukraine Before Call With Its Leader". The New York Times. September 23, 2019.
    2. ^ "Trump's Russia Policy Is Better Than Obama's Was". Foreign Policy. April 13, 2018.

    -- Tobby72 (talk) 12:03, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't believe that material improves the article. Besides being overly detailed, it seems to try to argue that Trump has been generous to Ukraine and that his attempt to trade political favors with Zelenski was not noticed by the Ukrainian government. The NYT wrote "A Ukrainian official said Mr. Zelensky’s government did not learn of the delay until about one month after the call.", so we cannot state it as a fact. I am opposed to including this.- MrX 🖋 13:31, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tobby72: - please get a better source than a self-declared blog on Foreign Policy. Seems full of opinion pieces. Also a recent source is better than April 2018. starship.paint (talk) 13:39, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    A non-starter poorly sourced SYNTH UNDUE POV. SPECIFICO talk 13:50, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Include the first part but omit the blog part.--MONGO (talk) 14:14, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Starship.paint:
    • "President Donald Trump's special envoy for Ukraine Kurt Volker said that the U.S. is considering delivering even more lethal weapons to Kiev's military to help the country fight pro-Russian separatists. The Trump administration already reversed the decision of former President Barack Obama to not send lethal weapons to Ukraine after sending 200 javelin anti-tank rockets to the country in April. Now, Volker said that the U.S. would be willing to provide even more military equipment to help address any additional military vulnerability." — [8]
    • "A transaction in April 2018 was more serious. Not only was it larger ($47 million), it included far more lethal weaponry, particularly 210 Javelin anti-tank missiles—the kind of weapons that Barack Obama’s administration had declined to give Kiev. Needless to say, the Kremlin was not pleased about either sale. Moreover, Congress soon passed legislation in May that authorized $250 million in military assistance, including lethal weaponry, to Ukraine in 2019. Congress had twice voted for military support on a similar scale during the last years of Obama’s administration, but the White House blocked implementation." — [9]
    • "When you actually look at the substance of what this administration has done, not the rhetoric but the substance, this administration has been much tougher on Russia than any in the post-Cold War era," said Daniel Vajdich, senior fellow at the Atlantic Council. Take military spending: Trump sought to add $1.4 billion for fiscal year 2018 to the European Deterrence Initiative — a military effort to deter Russian aggression that was initially known as the European Reassurance Initiative. That's a 41 percent increase from the last year of the Obama administration. The president also agreed to send lethal weapons to Ukraine — a step that Obama resisted." — [10]
    • "According to The New York Times, Zelensky’s government did not learn that the military aid was frozen until more than one month later. Democratic Senator Chris Murphy, who met with Zelensky in early September, said that the Ukrainian president “did not make any connection between the aid that had been cut off and the requests that he was getting from [Trump attorney Rudy] Giuliani. It will be difficult to prove extortion if Trump’s purported target was unaware." — [11]
    -- Tobby72 (talk) 15:12, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    As these four, #1 and #3 seem like fine sources (your original NYT too) But I will defer to fellow editors if this material bears inclusion. I suspect it is too much detail for this BLP. Maybe the presidency article? Apart from the sourcing, I will sit on the fence. starship.paint (talk) 15:28, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Dated, out of context, cherrypicked "sources" are not OK when they're used to insinuate political POV talking points. We've seen this in many articles recently -- it's the same stuff and the same sourcing and policy errors. No way this belongs. SPECIFICO talk 15:55, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Civil war

    It is about time to add a section to the article about the threatened or imminent civil war For instance this article from Mother Jones as I googled Civil War oath keepers I came up with oathkeepers.org who blame everything on those "nasty liberals" who spurn fascism (i.e. antifa).Oldperson (talk) 17:57, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Ah...no.--MONGO (talk) 18:05, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This item is not entirely without merit for inclusion, but I don't see it warranteeing a section (at least, not yet, as too WP:RECENT). It might be suited to the Impeachment inquiry section, or to one of the articles linked to the section: Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump or Efforts to impeach Donald Trump, as to Trump's commentary, and implied threat of civil war, regarding the effort. Lindenfall (talk) 18:22, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You can't have an article about Trump without mentioning his threats and alleged crimes. He has threatened to use his cops, military and bikers in a civil war, and they (like the Oath Keepers) have taken him up on it.Oldperson (talk) 18:29, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I see that the tweet itself is already on the page. Adding sources for prose, though may be best to leave it at the tweet and wait on developments, lest we forget WP is WP:NOTNEWS:
    • Delete all fringe insane speculation items. Like speculations towards civil war. Also exclude fringe tabloid about him being Hitler, being a werewolf love child, secret messages, etcetera.) Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:18, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Every businessman trades secret messages. As have all but the most naive civil warlords. But yeah, if we don't know the content, it's insane to try and explain. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:41, October 4, 2019 (UTC)

    Additions of alleged abuses of power into Biden

    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.

    Sources

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    Factoid: The lead of this first-level bio has grown by 36% in the past six days. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:08, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Ossia

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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.[12][13][14] - MrX 🖋 11:55, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    {{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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    Done. I was merely thinking WP:DUCK Oldperson (talk) 10:54, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Yes, I support SPECIFICO's proposal as well. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:59, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Tweets

    Just noting that I've removed some tweets which were presented verbatim in the Space where image thumbs usually go, that were also previously removed by User:Awilley but reinstated by User:SPECIFICO. These tweets are recent additions so per WP:BRD and the tight rules on this article we should discuss here. I'm also not sure if the copyright implications of copying three such chunks of text from twitter. It is not just presenting quotes with discussion, as we usually do in text... Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 22:26, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for starting the discussion. I removed them originally because they didn't seem very encyclopedic (the "commons" edit summary was in jest). I don't think they're copyright violations...they're direct quotes and they're clearly attributed. It just seemed like a lot of weight to give Twitter, especially considering one of the tweets was from Robert Jeffress, not Trump. Pinging ZiplineWhy to the discussion, since they added the tweets originally. ~Awilley (talk) 22:39, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Re: [15][16][17][18]
    Agree with Amakuru on process. Reverts and edit summaries, after the initial BRD revert, are not a substitute for discussion.
    Agree with Amakuru and Awilley on content. SPECIFICO argued: His tweets are widely identified with him and are his preferred mode of communication. If press conferences were his preferred mode communication, would we cherry-pick quotes from the transcripts of press conferences, and include them verbatim? And in prominent and space-consuming side boxes? I don't think we would. Also, when did tweet boxes become substitutes for images? ―Mandruss ☎ 22:42, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The images in this article are largely scrapes from amateur websites and are of very poor quality. Cluttered, distorted, ill-lit, etc. However there need not be an equivalence between photos and screen-renderings of tweets. So that's irrelevant. Also please review 24-hour BRD. There's nothing wrong with a revert and subsequent discussion. Neither Awilley nor I would think of reinstating our edits w/o discussion, I am sure. These are widely-cited tweets and one could ask for secondary sources that indicate they're qualify per WEIGHT, but there's no false or misleading narrative implied by their inclusion. Finally, there is no copyright violation with using them in this way, although as I said the graphic format could readily be improved. SPECIFICO talk 22:58, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    So it's your understanding that re-reverting can continue indefinitely as long as no editor reverts twice? That is not my understanding, nor does it make sense, nor does it foster article stability. The place for discussion is the article's talk page, not its page history. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:00, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note about process: Specifico is right that nobody violated the BRD sanction, and technically under the sanction the reverts could continue with an endless supply of fresh editors. But in practice that never happens because after a couple of reverts the interested editors realize it's time to discuss, as happened here. WP:STATUSQUO is still a thing. ~Awilley (talk) 00:15, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I fail to see how SPECIFICO's decision to re-revert instead of starting discussion was constructive or beneficial in any way, but ok. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:51, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    "Want to add new information about Donald Trump? Most likely it should not go here ..."

    While waiting for my next herd to innoculate I spotted this little maverick, which I can't figure out how to reach. --Brogo13 (talk) 17:48, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I am confuse. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 21:14, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Is that because you're in a fog?[FBDB]- MrX 🖋 22:01, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This talk page section put me in a fog. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 13:13, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Bless their hearts. Meanwhile, perhaps this … is a clue. --Brogo13 (talk) 13:00, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Article: Conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump?

    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.

    Sources

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    em dash vs. en dash

    Issue resolved. Mgasparin (talk) 21:07, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    User:Mandruss has pointed out that I hastily mass-changed the en dashes to em dashes in the article. I believed that to be a proper change per MOS:DASH, but the MoS actually says either style is fine. However, I still think that using a normal em dash symbol (—) is easier to understand while editing than the code "{{snd}}". While I will refrain from mass-changing in the future before gaining consensus, does anyone feel strongly enough about this formatting change to want to change it back? UpdateNerd (talk) 03:51, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @UpdateNerd: Hmm. That's different from what you told me on your UTP, "would be happy to fix that change". Not "would be happy to fix that change if anybody else cares".
    You didn't just mass-change the article from spaced ndash to unspaced mdash. You also eliminated the use of a template that made it 100% clear what punctuation was being used, making it quite a bit easier to maintain consistency. The various types of dashes are not that easily distinguished by eye, particularly in some fonts. If an editor doesn't know what {{snd}} is, enlightenment is only a few keystrokes away at Template:Snd. When something like that is done throughout an article it should not be mass changed without discussion based on nothing but a personal preference. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:15, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I made my initial response while mobile so I didn't realize the change was across the board on the article. It's a personal preference either way, so I don't want to spend time re-formatting the article in what could be seen as a second disruptive change. Though I wouldn't oppose anyone who performed a 'find and replace' to change it back (or would be happy to perform it myself) if that's what the consensus comes to, or if no one else comments. UpdateNerd (talk) 04:24, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Your reasoning makes some sense with regard to the change in punctuation style. Not so much with respect to the removals of the template. Therefore I've gone ahead and reverted you, which I probably should have done in the first place. Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:49, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    In defense of not using the template, a good percentage of editors might not be aware that you can copy & paste the name of a template to find out more information on its page. It is a little weird that en & em dashes appear the same when editing, but that's what page previews exist for. I don't see the particular template used on very many articles, so it depends on local consensus. But I'm aware that that's what I should have obtained before trying to force a stylistic change originally. Thanks. UpdateNerd (talk) 05:09, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    a good percentage of editors might not be aware that you can copy & paste the name of a template to find out more information on its page. And doing things that tend to keep editors ignorant about editing basics is a good strategy in the long term? I think not.
    If it's not used in many articles, that's most likely because few editors know about the technique, which is most likely because editors like you are avoiding/eliminating its use because it's not used in many articles. That's a self-perpetuating trap best avoided. To avoid/eliminate better things because they're not widely used is a recipe for mediocrity. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:20, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mandruss: Is there a similar template for em dashes? I'm pretty sure they're preferred, but I can't be bothered to find a guideline for that right now. UpdateNerd (talk) 06:19, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @UpdateNerd: No problemo, the guideline is MOS:DASH, and mdashes are not preferred. To answer your question for future reference, you could use {{Em dash}} or any of its redirects. But not here. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:25, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 October 2019

    Please read the Current Consensus before making edit requests for this page, please. Mgasparin (talk) 15:09, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    Uncrappy wordly edits, such as: "is the 45th and current president of the United States" -> "is the 45th President of the United States" "Before entering politics, he was a businessman and television personality." -> "The businessman and television personality entered politics in ..." etc. Costhee (talk) 03:17, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done: We have longstanding consensus about the exact wording of this article's first sentence. — JFG talk 13:25, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Why was other ventures redacted?

    @El C:Why was the section other ventures redacted? There is no explanation in the Edit SummaryOldperson (talk) 08:19, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    It wasn't redacted. It was archived by a bot.- MrX 🖋 15:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    MrX Thanx, but that is not what this edit summary says long with at least three other edits by El COldperson (talk) 18:21, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    El_C revdel'ed a comment by another editor (something different from redaction in the Wikipedia world) in the "A useful resource" thread. That had nothing to do with the "Other ventures" thread. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:29, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Mandruss But he (who is an admin) did not use revdel in his summary. He used the words redacted (three time).Oldperson (talk) 18:52, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe El C used the term "redact" only in reference to his removal of the offending comment from the thread, which is distinct from preventing the diffs containing the comment from being viewed in the page history (revdel). ―Mandruss ☎ 19:18, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, in this instance, that is correct. Though, in fairness, I do sometime use revdel and redact interchangeably, which maybe I shouldn't. El_C 22:29, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump&oldid=920321562"