Talk:Donald Trump

Highlighted open discussions

• None.

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

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

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

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

04. Superseded by #15

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 (Nov 2016, Dec 2016) (Superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)

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

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

07. Superseded by #35

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 (Sep 2016, February 2017, wording shortened per April 2017, upheld with July 2018) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019)

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

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

10. 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 Superseded by #17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 (Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017) (superseded by #17 since 2 April 2017)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) (Superseded by RfC Aug 2020)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The first issue for a closer to consider in a complicated and controversial RfC such as the discussion below is the quality of opinions. That is, are there arguments that should be considered irrelevant, such as ...those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue. Despite claims from some editors about the !votes of other editors, I see no arguments that clearly and incontrovertibly fall under one of those categories. Indeed, it could reasonably be argued that all of the !votes skirt towards a least one.

The next issue, therefore, is considering whether there is a multiplicity of editors favoring either the original text or favoring changing it. There are 11 editors that wish the original text to be retained, and 18 editors that favored at least one alternative text. (Note: There are 2 editors that favored one of the alternative texts but expressed a secondary preference for the original, resulting in a total higher than the number of editors.) So retaining the original text is not the consensus of the editors who have expressed a preference.

The final step is to determine what the preference is for the new text. With multiple options and many editors favoring more than one, this gets a little complex. The preferences tend to either for A with B as a fallback position or for C and D in one or the other order. Taking the expressed preferences below into account, however, tends to favor Option D. Of the 16 editors rejecting the original text clearly, 11 either preferred Option D over Option C or only preferred Option D. The discussion below therefore expressed a rough consensus to change the text and a narrow consensus to use Option D.

The argument can be made that Option A and Option D have about the same level of support and therefore this is more properly a "no consensus" discussion, which was how it was originally closed. A no consensus close would, however, result in retention of the orignal text and there is a clear majority of editors wishing to not retain the original text. A no consensus close would not accurately reflect the discussion below. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:42, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

---

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

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

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

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

Survey for books in lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion for books in lead

Notifying previous commenters:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alternative view RE: Close

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Another Mueller lead revision suggestion

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

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

The current description omits a lot:

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

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

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

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

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

6.) More consistent with the body

7.) More clear

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

!votes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Version 2 (no change) – The proposed version 1 is less neutral, by focusing on alleged intent by Trump and his campaign to welcome and encourage Russian activities, rather than just react to them as they unfolded. — JFG ^talk 14:46, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources

Dismissal of James Comey & Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi

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

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

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

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

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

On Obama's profile it mentions Bin-Laden's death. It should mention Baghdadi's death here just as well..  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boorif (talk • contribs) 20:38, 1 November 2019 (UTC) 

this has nothing to do with Obama.2600:1702:2340:9470:944D:FD99:1D34:6E3E (talk) 06:02, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

State of Residency Now Florida

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

Sounds good to me.2600:1702:2340:9470:C4C1:BBD4:10D3:1657 (talk) 03:17, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll support that. Mgasparin (talk) 23:42, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

"may have" included withholding military aid

Mandruss, your reversion of my change needs examination. The comment I changed seemed to be general in nature, IOW about all possible witnesses, and together they confirmed that it is a fact, not a "may have", that the pressure campaign "included withholding military aid". That the quote from one witness says "may have included..." is thus specific, and I did not change that quote. The sum total of witness testimony and other evidence confirms the fact that military aid was withheld. Even Trump confirmed that he withheld aid. It's a fact which should be plainly stated in the lead. Am I missing something here? -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:14, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Got any RS, or are you synthing? ―Mandruss ☎ 03:16, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

The article makes it plain that the aid was withheld, a fact not denied by the GOP, Trump, or Ukraine. This is a "sky is blue" type of fact, but the article does contain the information. If the aid was not withheld, we would not have this article: Trump–Ukraine scandal. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:21, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Here's what we have on Trump:

• "Trump confirmed he had indeed temporarily withheld military aid from Ukraine, while offering contradicting reasons for his decision."

I don't engage in synthesis in articles, and I don't engage in speculation on talk pages that is not backed up by RS. I may not produce the sources on the spot, but I can when necessary. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:25, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Sources

I look forward to your compelling, non-opinion RS that says linkage is a fact. Not just one or two, but to use wiki voice we need fairly widespread agreement, something approaching the degree of agreement about his proclivity for falsehoods. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:29, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Mandruss, okay, I'm back now. When I first read your last response, I was blown away. I had to take a break and think about it to try and make sense of it. My first impression was that you were denying that the military aid was withheld, but I knew that just could NOT be the case, because that is beyond doubt a fact. That would be like denying that the sky is blue. So what is going on here?

Then it dawned on me that we have been "talking past each other". Rather than you denying the aid was withheld, maybe you mean the pressure campaign is a "maybe", and allegation, a Democratic opinion. In that case, we just need to move the qualifier to a different spot in the sentence. Let's see how that looks:

• Current version: "exposed a wider pressure campaign which may have included withholding military aid to Ukraine."
• Proposed version: "alleged a wider pressure campaign which included withholding military aid to Ukraine."

Am I totally off-base here, or does this address your real concern? (I believe the pressure campaign is backed up by enough RS and witnesses to also be stated as a fact, but let's not deal with that now.) -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:42, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I would be ok with "Ensuing witness testimony before Congressional committees alleged a wider pressure campaign which included withholding military aid to Ukraine." That doesn't make it entirely clear that, yes, aid was in fact withheld for a period of time – that it's only the linkage that's unclear at this point – but it's about as accurate as we can expect within the limited space available in the lead.

Or, we might say that the situation is too complicated to summarize this with sufficient clarity and accuracy within the limited space available in the lead, and so that sentence should be omitted entirely. I'm leaning in that direction, since (1) the lead suffers from chronic length problems and (2) I think we're too deep in the weeds for the lead of this top-level bio. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:15, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

User:BullRangifer - That doesn’t seem a large part of the section, so per WP:LEAD should not be in lead. If it’s in there, then it should summarize the content wording of “alleged” and “pressure campaign may have included” cancelling Pence visit and withholding aid, with the words “alleged” and/or “may have”. The linking of aid as part of a pressure for personal benefit is what the untried case may be about, it currently is *NOT* a ‘fact’ for wikivoice nor “all possible” witnesses. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:50, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Markbassett, now I've read your comment. I have a hard time making heads or tails of it, but I suspect my reply above your comment may address your point. We may be saying the same thing, even if I believe the pressure campaign is now so evident that we should treat it as a fact. All RS treat it that way now. Yet, even if it's a fact, we may still have to wait a while and just qualify it as an allegation for the time being. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:47, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

User:BullRangifer Closer, though I’m coming at it from looking at the content supposedly being summarized and not seeing enough to really deserve LEAD mention, plus that what’s there is the “alleged” and “may have” language. (Just whistleblower and William Taylor there, no mention of other witnesses and opposing testimonies.). Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:18, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

FYI I have enacted the version agreed by BullRangifer and Mandruss: "Ensuing witness testimony before Congressional committees alleged a wider pressure campaign which included withholding military aid to Ukraine." — JFG ^talk 07:30, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Improvements to current version

Before noticing this thread, I edited this version for two reasons. First, it was poorly-written English, with needless passive voice and barbarisms like "witness testimony". While we do have nouns that act as adjectives in common idioms, e.g. "dog food" "fist fight", there are better ways to refer to what a witness testifies, which sounds more like an "artist painting" "chef cuisine". Second, the version I modified omitted the key point of the whistleblower report, namely, that Trump was soliciting foreign interference in the 2020 US election. From an NPOV standpoint, the Bidens are more or less roadkill incidental to the impeachment inquiry. So the older version, which has now been reinstated, needs to be improved. Here is a shorter alternative, which I am inclined to insert unless there are objections or improvements. Comments welcome.

The House of Representatives launched an impeachment inquiry after a whistleblower stated that Trump had withheld congressionally-mandated military assistance from Ukraine and had pressured Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky to interfere in the 2020 United States elections by asking him to investigate Democrat Joe Biden. In depositions before the House Intelligence Committee, witnesses subsequently testified to broader improprieties.

SPECIFICO talk 16:30, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I object to that sentence. The whistleblower did not mention interfering in the 2020 election, so it is incorrect to attribute that to him/her. The whistleblower said Trump asked for investigations into Biden. It is later interpretation to say the purpose was to interfere in the election. See if you can come up with a followup sentence that mentions the 2020 election effect (sourced, of course). I'll see if I can do something along those lines. My thought would be go directly to impeachment inquiry without mentioning the whistleblower. This has gone way beyond him/her. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:40, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I echo MelanieN's thoughts on this. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:42, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

MelanieN, I like skipping the whistleblower. That makes it much better and greatly shortens it. I took the interference bit from our article on the Trump-Ukraine Scandal here [10]. I didn't check it and I've lost track of the timeline of each disclosure - initial report vs. subsequent testimony. SPECIFICO talk 17:04, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

@Scjessey, MelanieN, and MrX: Let's please resolve the point about election interference. Here is the quote from the opening statement of the whistleblower report

"In the course of my official duties, I have received information from multiple U.S. government officials that the President of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election."

Is there some reason not to use this succinct statement of the underlying allegation that led to the investigations? SPECIFICO talk 02:39, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't object to including it.- MrX 🖋 17:24, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) For comparison, here is the current barbaric version:

The House of Representatives initiated an impeachment inquiry following a whistleblower complaint alleging abuse of power when Trump pressured Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate activities of former U.S. vice president Joe Biden and his son Hunter in Ukraine. Ensuing witness testimony before Congressional committees alleged a wider pressure campaign which included withholding military aid to Ukraine.

I favor the barbaric version as being slightly clearer. Mentioning the witholding of miltary aid before the pressuring seems unnatural. I'm also not found of the phrase "broader improprieties". That said, I can live with either version if other editors are inclined one way or the other. - MrX 🖋 16:56, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Could you propose a better-written edit of that version? -- that would eliminate the simplest-to-fix problem. SPECIFICO talk 17:03, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I would be happy to oblige:

The House of Representatives initiated an impeachment inquiry following a whistleblower complaint alleging abuse of power by Trump and a White House cover-up. The complaint focused on a July 2019 telephone call in which Trump pressured the Ukrainian president to investigate his political rival Joe Biden, and his son Hunter Biden. Ensuing witness testimony before Congressional committees exposed a wider pressure campaign which may have included withholding military aid to Ukraine.

- MrX 🖋 17:25, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

OK, so I am taking another try and here is what I think is short and lead-worthy, avoids teasing detail that's too complex for the lead, and summarizes where things stand today:

In September 2019, a whistleblower report alleged that Trump had abused his presidential power by withholding congressionally-mandated military aid to Ukraine and pressuring its government to interfere in the 2020 US election. Following this disclosure, The House of Representatives launched an impeachment inquiry. In testimony before the House Intelligence House Committees, witnesses testified to a broader pattern of misconduct by Trump and his cohorts.

SPECIFICO talk 22:29, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Seems okay, but I feel like we're jumping the gun a little bit with the last sentence, since the testimonies are still ongoing. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Well this is what we know now. We already know parts of what several key witnesses have said. If another half dozen appear and credibly contradict this, well -- that's the beauty of software. We change it. SPECIFICO talk 00:04, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

This would be fine except testimony was given before multiple committees, not just the House Intelligence Committee.[11] - MrX 🖋 00:46, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Easy fix, thanks. SPECIFICO talk 00:56, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Not even a link to Trump–Ukraine scandal? That is the key matter that triggered the impeachment hearing. No link to the actual impeachment inquiry either? And the link to foreign interference in 2020 looks POV. And earlier there was editor agreement (including by SPECIFICO) to drop the whistleblower, but now s/he's back in the text? And what of the last sentence weaseling away a "pattern of misconduct by Trump and his cohorts"? State what the alleged misconduct is, or remain silent. This proposal needs further tweaking and broader approval. Meanwhile, I'll revert; sorry, no time to offer a better text today. Hopefully other editors will chime in. — JFG ^talk 14:21, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Please review the discussion of this edit in this section and the following section of this talk page that followed your previous revert. Several editors participated and the issues you cite were hashed out. The edit you've reverted reflected consensus in that discussion. You can easily add any links you find helpful without a blind revert. It would have been helpful if you had joined @MelanieN, MrX, Scjessey: and me in the discussion. SPECIFICO talk 15:25, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to restore the version that was agreed among myself and the 3 editors pinged above yesterday. JFG, if you have improvements such as adding a link or others that you're confident do not change the meaning, by all means when you have time, make them or propose more extensive changes without another wholesale revert. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 01:40, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Contrary to your assertion, I have not seen MelanieN agree to this version. Her comment at the top of this thread "objects" to a prior version of yours, and she has apparently not commented at all on your latest proposal. Scjessey expressed some reservations about your proposed last sentence "jumping the gun". And thanks for adding some of the links that I suggested, but you still re-inserted the "whistleblower" when most editors commenting in this thread agreed to remove him/her at this stage.

Generally, the wording of this paragraph is contentious and actively debated; you should not force your preferred version upon readers without a more robust debate. I'll revert, and then we can open up various proposals to scrutiny in this thread or a new one. Or if you feel that consensus cannot be achieved by informal discussion, you can open an RfC. — JFG ^talk 08:57, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I see that my attempted pings of the consensus editors was redlinked, so I'm repeating and they can confirm or change their agreement with the improved replacement text, now reverted. Note that the version you seem to prefer also refers to the origin and the whistleblower. Yes, we initially agreed when @MelanieN: preferred to remove the whistleblower, but that was before I provided the red text that is the lead of the whistleblower report document that precipitated the impeachment proceedings. See her strikethrough above. Anyway, this is just to fix the pings to @Scjessey: and @MrX:. SPECIFICO talk 13:05, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I would alter it very slightly:

In September 2019, a whistleblower alleged Trump had abused his presidential power by withholding congressionally-mandated military aid to Ukraine and pressuring its government to interfere in the 2020 US election. The House of Representatives launched an impeachment inquiry to investigate the claim, and witnesses have subsequently testified to a broader pattern of misconduct by Trump and his cohorts.

This eliminates the redundant words "report" and "that" from the first sentence, and the change of language in the second indirectly implies the inquiry is ongoing. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:29, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I prefer a version that keeps "The House of Representatives launched an impeachment inquiry..." at the beginning. That's the most significant fact for this material. I also prefer not to start a sentence with a date (although I'm guilty of dong it myself on occasion).- MrX 🖋 14:11, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Okay, how about this?

The House of Representatives launched an impeachment inquiry to investigate a September 2019 claim alleging Trump had abused his presidential power by withholding congressionally-mandated military aid to Ukraine and pressuring its government to interfere in the 2020 US election. Witnesses have subsequently testified to a broader pattern of misconduct by Trump and his cohorts.

It eliminates mention of the whistleblower, which satisfies the wishes of some editors. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:20, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Either of MrX or Scjessey or the reverted version are OK with me. Scjessey, I think it would be better to say "report" instead of "claim" which we know is a loaded word. I'm not sure we gain much from omitting "whistleblower" now that we are using the words from the report "interfere...". @MelanieN: I think that if you could share your view on this, we can wrap this up and deal with other things. SPECIFICO talk 18:59, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to miss the last few days, I’ve been busy IRL. Offhand comments: in the lead I don’t think we should focus on (or possibly even mention) the whistleblower. I think we need to mention the phone call, the impeachment inquiry, and subsequent testimony showing that the issue is broader than just the phone call. Just for context, this is what is currently in the lead: In September 2019, the House of Representatives initiated an impeachment inquiry following allegations of abuse of power when Trump pressured Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate activities of former U.S. vice president Joe Biden and his son Hunter in Ukraine. Ensuing witness testimony before Congressional committees alleged a wider pressure campaign which included withholding military aid to Ukraine.

That’s actually not bad but it could be better. I might go for a slight rewording of it, or a slight modification of Scjessey’s latest proposal. Something like this: The House of Representatives launched an impeachment inquiry following a September 2019 claim report that Trump had abused his presidential power by pressuring the president of Ukraine to undertake actions which would have the effect of helping Trump’s 2020 re-election campaign. One form of pressure was withholding congressionally-mandated military aid to Ukraine. Witnesses subsequently testified that Trump and his surrogates had been carrying out that pressure campaign for months. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:23, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

MelanieN: Thanks for the quick reply. I think we are basically on the same page here and I suggest you place your text in the article so we can at least work on any further improvements from what we've accomplished over the past week or so. SPECIFICO talk 21:01, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't really like the next-to-last sentence. I'll see if I can tweak it a little. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:07, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

How about if I replace the next-to-last sentence with Among other inducements, Trump ordered congressionally-mandated military aid for Ukraine to be withheld. Still good? I checked to make sure that our article text does say that Trump was the one who ordered the withhold. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:15, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree, that's better. Since this is as close to a consensus as we have been on this material, I have edited it into the article.- MrX 🖋 23:17, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm good with either the Scjessey or the 2nd MelanieN version, except for the word "claim" which should be replaced by "report" or "complaint". "Claim" reads as an expression of doubt in this context.- MrX 🖋 21:22, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm OK with that. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:03, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Here is the version that we have arrived at based on this discussion:

The House of Representatives launched an impeachment inquiry following a September 2019 report that Trump had abused his presidential power by pressuring the president of Ukraine to undertake actions which would have the effect of helping Trump’s 2020 re-election campaign. Among other inducements, Trump ordered congressionally-mandated military aid for Ukraine to be withheld. Witnesses subsequently testified that Trump and his surrogates had been carrying out that pressure campaign for months.

- MrX 🖋 23:20, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks @all for the discussion and suggestions. This latest version bothers me in that it only ascribes electoral motives to Trump without mentioning the underlying Biden affair, or general corruption in Ukraine. "Among other inducements" is vague and unnecessary. And we must obviously add a link to the main article Trump–Ukraine scandal. Let me suggest a change:

The House of Representatives launched an impeachment inquiry following a September 2019 report that Trump had pressured the president of Ukraine to investigate his electoral opponent Joe Biden and his son Hunter. Earlier, Trump had temporarily withheld congressionally-mandated military aid for Ukraine. Several witnesses testified that Trump and his surrogates had been carrying out that pressure campaign for months.

Comments? — JFG ^talk 08:41, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

The investigations and the impeachment inquiry have nothing to do with the Bidens, the Clinton server, Ukrainian corruption, the Deep State, etc. The lead-level fact is that the president was reported to have abused his official authority. It might be helpful for you to review many discussions and rejected edits on the Trump-Ukraine scandal article and the Hunter Biden and Burisma articles where attempts to insinuate the Trump/Giuliani/Barr narratives into those articles have consistently been rejected. At the lead level, of all the detail we might add, debunked insinuations of the Bidens should not be not on the list. However the link to Foreign interference in the 2020 United States elections (which is the top-level concern cited by the whistleblower) would improve the current lead text. This was discussed at some length but is not in the current version. For the avoidance of doubt, do you believe that RS reporting tells us that the impeachment hearings are about actual investigations and wrongdoing and corruption in Ukraine? If so, we can discuss sourcing and content rather than WEIGHT and lead-summary narration. SPECIFICO talk 14:37, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I would very strongly oppose the idea of bringing the Biden family into this. Exactly who Trump was trying to attack by abusing his power is not relevant, and by including the Biden family we would essentially be assisting Trump with his totally unfounded smear campaign. Absolutely not. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:41, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

This would have been a pretty good version about four weeks ago, but so much has been revealed since then that the Biden aspect is simply a distraction. It would certainly be something that we could cover in the body of the article, but it does not serve as a proper summary of the affair. Your version also omits the central accusation that Trump abused the power of his office, and the widely reported allegation that Trump's actions appear to have been politically motivated to affect the election. - MrX 🖋 14:46, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Impeachment section in the article text: maybe a major trim?

We currently have three highly detailed paragraphs (“In September 2019…”, “The impeachment inquiry…” , and “During October…”) about the origins of the impeachment inquiry. I believe that is way too much for detail for this biography. I propose condensing them into a single paragraph, and I will do that if people think it’s OK. (I don’t want to go to all that work if people prefer the three current, highly detailed paragraphs.) What do you think, should I give it a shot? -- MelanieN (talk) 16:49, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

@MelanieN: I assume you're referring to the body of the article. The length of the material about impeachment in the body seems about right, but not every detail is equally significant. I'm in favor a rewrite, but not a trim per se. I'll expand on that in a moment... - MrX 🖋 17:01, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Here is an outline of the points I think we should cover in the body:

1. Pre-inquiry hist (keep material as is)

2. September 24-ish events

a. Revelation of whistleblower complaint

b. Brief summary of whistleblower complaint

c. Pelosi's announcement of an impeachment inquiry

3. Subsequent events

a. Depositions (briefly, what was revealed in closed door testimony)

b. Admission of quid pro quo by Giuliani, Mulvaney and others

c. House floor vote on procedures}}

I think we could cut the specific mention of Taylor, some repetitive material, and everything in the fifth paragraph except for the last sentence. Then we could reword the material to make it considerably tighter.- MrX 🖋 17:22, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

It's likely to be a very inefficient use of editor resources to try to keep up with news and nonsense relating to impeachment-related reporting. And due weight is just about impossible and WP:NOTNEWS. I think what's most important is to refer to events that are being pretty well updated in other articles that can be linked and above all not to validate various self-serving narratives and twists of language, e.g. unduly referring to a Ukranian "investigation" when RS tell us that Trump/Giuliani/Barr are engaged in soliciting and propagating false narratives, not investigations. SPECIFICO talk 17:29, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi, SPECIFICO. We have disagreed on this before. It is true that "investigation" is a euphemism for "get me dirt". But "investigation" is the wording used by the president, by the witnesses, and by the vast majority of Reliable Sources. Unless and until a significant number of neutral reliable sources begin saying "Trump asked Zelensky to propagate false narratives", we cannot say that here. Or not in Wikipedia's voice; not without attributing it to the speaker. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:52, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Which witnesses? As to "investigate" -- That doesn't fit the bill for a euphemism, which is a word that is intended to fully convey the meaning, but avoids certain words. Trump/Giuliani/Barr are using the word "investigate" in a way that is patently false. What they are requesting or requiring or directing has none of the elements of an investigation and is instead a scripted enactment of something that is falsely called an investigation. The American media was initially gun-shy about these propaganda tactics earlier in the Trump presidency. But that has changed. Moreover, in tertiary sources, which we should be using -- and not deprecating as "opinion" -- there is very clear language that invalidates "investigation" in this context. SPECIFICO talk 18:44, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, SPECIFICO, you have been arguing against the word "investigations" for some weeks now, but I have not seen anyone agree with you that instead of using the words Trump or other participants actually used, we should use your description of what those requests amounted to. In particular there is no consensus here to do that when attributing words to certain individuals - something I have cautioned you about repeatedly. As for "which witnesses?", if you have seen any witness quoted as saying anything like "Trump asked Zelensky to promote false narratives" or "Trump asked Zelensky to interfere in the 2020 election", please provide a citation. Not a citation for the opinion of the writer, mind you; a citation for what the witness said. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:48, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

MelanieN, in response to your previous request, I yesterday provided you not only a link to secondary RS but also, later, a red-text quote from the whistleblower report that has been cited in WaPo and other top sources. This is the "interfere in 2020" bit. Have you seen that? And MrX's reply that this would be OK for the lead text, I'd appreciate hearing any rationale from you to the contrary. It's sounding to me as if you feel I am being disruptive here, so I'd rather hear your reply to my having given you the citation to the whistleblower report that you requested and that I'd initially presumed you had read. I pinged you here for your thoughts. Thanks.

With respect to the false narratives, investigations, etc. First, I'm not arguing, I'm trying to articulate an general point about the language we use in article text. I have not falsely attributed words to individuals, I don't know what prompts you to say that, and I'm certainly not forcing bad language into article text if my bold edit is not supported. On the other hand, you may have noticed that my concern about the Mueller Report language in the lead (concerning the context-free use of the word "establish") did finally result, after an extended poll, with my approach having been adopted. SPECIFICO talk 21:27, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I missed your link to the whistleblower report; sorry, and I have struck my mistaken impression that he/she did not say that. So we can certainly include it in the article text as part of what the whistleblower said; I still don't think it belongs in the lead. In fact I see that several people have agreed with the notion of de-emphasizing the whistleblower since this issue has now gone way beyond that point. If I do come up with a "major trim" version to propose (and I will certainly propose it here before implementing it), I will mention the whistleblower but focus on the subsequently established facts. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:56, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I totally agree with your point that there are main articles on this subject which are linked from this article, and that the blow-by-blow details should be in those articles, not in this biography. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:05, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, MrX, I am referring to the three paragraphs in the "impeachment" section of the article text. But I am not talking about a minor trim. For the purposes of this biography, I do not think that the amount of current coverage is "about right"; I think it is far too detailed, virtually a play-by-play coverage of the last few weeks. I am proposing a drastic (maybe 50%) reduction of that material by doing a lot of summarizing. My proposal would be something like this:

1. The paragraph on pre-inquiry history: Keep it as it is.

2. The three paragraphs describing the whistleblower complaint, the slow unveiling of the specific allegations, the various depositions, etc.: Reduce to a single paragraph along the lines of: the Ukraine phone call came to light. What Trump said in the call - that he repeatedly asked Zelensky to open a investigation into the Bidens, told him to work with Giuliani and Barr on it, and hinted that military aid was contingent on those investigations happening. The fact that the transcript and multiple witnesses (not naming all of them) confirmed that military aid to Ukraine was being withheld contingent on Zelensky opening the investigations. The point (need a good neutral reference) that asking for dirt on Biden amounted to asking for foreign help in the 2020 election. I think I can do all this in one paragraph.

3. The existing paragraph abut the House actions (your fifth paragraph): keep it as is.

Let's see, through discussion, which approach people favor: your slight rewrite or my major trim. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:40, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

It's possible that we could get all of the most relevant facts into one paragraph. I was not suggesting a slight rewrite— more of a do over, but without regard to size.- MrX 🖋 18:23, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

OK, thanks for clarifying. What do folks think about this idea? -- MelanieN (talk) 20:49, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

We should definitely have what the White House confirmed: The Trump White House has corroborated several allegations raised by the whistleblower. A non-verbatim transcript of the Trump–Zelensky call confirmed that Trump requested investigations into Joe Biden, his son Hunter Biden, as well as a conspiracy theory involving a Democratic National Committee server, while repeatedly urging Zelensky to work with Giuliani and Barr on these matters. The White House also confirmed that a record of the call had been stored in a highly restricted system. White House acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney stated that one reason why Trump withheld military aid to Ukraine was Ukrainian "corruption related to the DNC server". This isn't the whole proposed text, just a portion. starship.paint (talk) 06:28, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I totally agree that the revelations and confirmations from the White House, and from Mulvaney, are important to include in the article text, and this is a good summary. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:59, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Does it not need to be mentioned that there was no subsequent investigation into Biden and the aid was released before the deadline? Mr Ernie (talk) 14:21, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, if we go into detail about accusations, we should also get into detail about events that contradict the accusations. My view is that both points are too detailed to belabor in the lead. — JFG ^talk 14:48, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Amend consensus #2

Per MOS:OVERLINK, "New York City" should not be linked. If a reader wants to read about New York City during their visit to the biography of Donald Trump, there is a link at words 6–8 of the lead of Queens. Need consensus to amend #Current consensus item 2 to de-link it there. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:41, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Notwithstanding the OVERLINK guideline, it is customary to link to people's places of birth, death and residence in their infoboxes. See {{Infobox person}} documentation of the |birth_place= parameter, that only advises not linking countries. — JFG ^talk 14:35, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Re your first sentence, this would not depart from that custom, as we would still link to his place of birth, Queens. A second link to NYC is redundant, especially when an easy second click gets you to the same place.

Re your second, obviously there is not enough room in the template guidance to duplicate MOS:OVERLINK, so it shouldn't be taken too literally. "Countries should generally not be linked" does not imply "but everything else should be". It links to OVERLINK, precisely so you can easily read the full guidance there. I see no rationale for giving that field special treatment with regard to OVERLINK, and you haven't offered one. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:01, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Fine, we disagree on interpretation of policy and guidelines. In other words, just another Tuesday on Wikipedia... Regarding the link to birth place, I don't think that Queens would be sufficient for an international readership, and I'm not sure whether you suggest specifying the borough in the infobox, in addition or in lieu of New York City. Let's see what other editors have to say. — JFG ^talk 14:28, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I'd be happy to see what other editors have to say, if they had anything to say about this. So far, the interest level is zero, and zero interest always means maintain status quo. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:32, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether you suggest specifying the borough in the infobox, in addition or in lieu of New York City. The borough is already in the infobox – the infobox says "Queens, New York City" per #2 – and I propose nothing except de-linking New York City. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Hmmmm. My first inclination would be to agree that linking New York City would be redundant, and I would still support that position if pressed; however, unbeknownst to me until just now is that fact that there is another Queens in the United States. Who knew? Moreover, while "New York City" appears several times in the body of the article, I find it is not linked to its article anywhere. So I suppose a person could make a flimsy argument that linking NYC this one time wouldn't do any harm. So I'm easy either way. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:03, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

LOL. I guess that's better than no comment. Your flimsy argument is incompatible with the OVERLINK concept, which is not about too many links of the same thing but about whether the thing should be linked at all in most articles. MOS:DUPLINK suggests one link in each article, but that's clearly only for items that pass OVERLINK. We link "American" and "United States" zero times – also per OVERLINK.

So it's not a matter of how we interpret the PAGs – the PAGs are clear enough on this question – but about how much we care about applying them consistently. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:37, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Purely from a point of style guidelines, I think you are correct in that the link is not needed. I don't think having it will do undue harm, but your argument for consistently applying the guidelines is sound. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:56, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Very few MOS vios do undue harm, and yet we have an extensive MOS. There seems to be fairly wide support for following MOS just as a matter of pointless pseudo-professionalism. Sorry for belaboring the point. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:22, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Results of Mueller Report

The fifth paragraph of the Lead states:

A special counsel investigation found that Trump and his campaign welcomed and encouraged Russian foreign interference in the 2016 presidential election under the belief that it would be politically advantageous, but did not find sufficient evidence to establish specific criminal charges related to conspiracy or coordination with Russia. Trump was also personally investigated for obstruction of justice and was neither indicted nor exonerated.

This is not sufficient, as it leaves the reader zero indication of why he was neither indicted or exonerated, and since this is not covered further in this article, but merely in one of its spinoff articles, some detail is needed to clarify this. I added those details to the paragraph, taking citations from the Mueller investigation article, so that it read:

A special counsel investigation found that Trump and his campaign welcomed and encouraged Russian foreign interference in the 2016 presidential election under the belief that it would be politically advantageous, but did not find sufficient evidence to establish specific criminal charges related to conspiracy or coordination with Russia, though the evidence gathered during the investigation had been incomplete due to encrypted, deleted, or unsaved communications as well as false, incomplete, or declined testimony. Trump was also personally investigated for obstruction of justice, with the Mueller Report finding ten instances in which Trump could have obstructed justice, but indicated that it would be the purview of Congress to decide whether Trump in fact did so, and take appropriate action.

The paragraph is enlarged by just a couple of lines, which is hardly excessive, as it still summarizes the conclusion of the Mueller Report, and now gave the reason why, despite the Report's ostensible conclusions, no action was immediately taken after it was published.

This was then reverted by Mandruss, who stated in his edit summary: "Too much detail for the lead of this top-level biography. This article does not use citations in the lead."

Regarding the first part of this rationale, this is obviously a question of opinion, which obviously varies, per its subjectivity. I would argue, as I mentioned above, that does not explain to the reader why he was not indicted or exonerated. The passage right before this does indicate what he wasn't charged with criminal conspiracy: Because the investigation did not find sufficient evidence to establish that crime. But to then say "Trump was also personally investigated for obstruction of justice and was neither indicted nor exonerated," and leave it at that is vague, and poor writing. According to policy, readers should not have to go chasing another article to understand the one at hand. The material should be restored.

Regarding the second part of this rationale, the article can use whatever citations are needed per WP:V, WP:BLP, et all., in the Lead section or anywhere else. Since the topic is clearly contentious, and since the article body does not go into further detail on this, the citations have to be placed in the only location where that information is given.

Sources

Nightscream (talk) 07:43, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Since the topic is clearly contentious, and since the article body does not go into further detail on this, the citations have to be placed in the only location where that information is given. - Lead summarizes body and should never include content not covered in the body. And there is plenty of content in that lead that is "clearly contentious" but lacks citation there, and this has sufficed for years at this article. Otherwise no comment at this point ―Mandruss ☎ 07:54, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I totally agree with removing this material. It is way too much detail for the lead, and already covered in the body of text. If even more detail is needed, it should be added to the body, not the lead. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:57, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

It is not covered in the body of the article, Melanie. Nightscream (talk) 02:45, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• You'd like to think that something of this magnitude would dominate a political biography. In the article on Bill Clinton, accusations of perjury and the Lewinsky affair are in the first paragraph of the lede. But in the article on Richard Nixon the lede skates rather blandly over the whole Watergate awkwardness, which merits about half of the shortest paragraph. Guy (help!) 00:19, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

The Nixon lead is weird, as the largest paragraph does not deal with his presidency at all. I don't think it's a good model to follow.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:18, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

This is not a political biography, as Trump is not a career politician. Both Nixon and Clinton are false equivalences (and I'd be hard pressed to think of a true equivalence in American politics). Hence the hazards of looking to other articles for comparisons or precedence. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:38, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

The text can be shortened a bit, without losing any meaning, I think:

A special counsel investigation found that Trump and his campaign welcomed and encouraged Russian foreign interference in the 2016 presidential election but did not find sufficient evidence to establish criminal charges related to conspiracy or coordination with Russia. The prosecutor noted that the evidence gathered during the investigation had been incomplete due to encrypted, deleted, or unsaved communications as well as false, incomplete, or declined testimony. Trump was also personally investigated for obstruction of justice, and the Mueller Report identified ten instances in which Trump may have obstructed justice. Mueller noted Justice Department policy that a sitting president cannot be indicted and accordingly did not consider whether to bring charges for obstruction.

SPECIFICO (talk • contribs) 01:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Sources

That's still way too long for the lead. The sentence about incomplete evidence and testimonies should be removed, as that is the case with virtually any investigation, and Mueller did gather truckloads of evidence and testimonies, so it's a bit misleading to insist on what he was not able to gather. Anyway, more relevant to the Mueller probe article than to this biography. The phrase on obstruction has become redundant: either keep the first part "Trump was personally investigated for obstruction of justice", or the second part "Mueller identified ten instances in which Trump may have obstructed justice", which is more precise while saying the same thing. Finally, the last sentence is a bit convoluted; I think "Trump was neither indicted nor exonerated" is clearer for uninitiated readers. — JFG ^talk 14:40, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, except that Mueller's report emphasized the factor of destroyed evidence, incomplete testimony and lack of cooperation. Mainstream discussion of the report has emphasized this, particularly in the context of the Section 2 discussion of acts that may have constituted obstruction of justice. I really wonder whether a lot of the disagreements on this page don't just reflect the fact that some editors have carefully read a lot more of the relevant documents and RS reporting on the subject matter. We've identified several instances of that over the past few months, and it's much more productive to discuss content in terms of sources and their quality than less readily objectifiable factors such as due weight or what might mislead a reader. SPECIFICO talk 16:04, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

The second sentence is very important, but it's a bit lengthy for the lead. Perhaps something like this would work:

A special counsel investigation found that Trump and his campaign welcomed and encouraged Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election but did not find sufficient evidence to establish criminal conspiracy or coordination with Russia. The investigation was hampered by incomplete evidence.[1] Trump was personally investigated for obstruction of justice, and the Mueller Report identified ten instances in which Trump may have obstructed justice.[2][3] Mueller noted Justice Department policy that a sitting president cannot be indicted and accordingly did not consider whether to bring charges for obstruction.[4][5][6]

- MrX 🖋 19:21, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Knowledgeable readers will understand what the shortened sentence refers to. It's increasingly clear, however, that most users, and many WP editors, do not know the conclusions of Mueller's report. The shortened version sounds too much like "too bad, we couldn't get more evidence, happens all the time, investigations are always less than perfect" when Mueller (very careful with his words) was saying something much more specific and significant related to possible obstruction. SPECIFICO talk 19:54, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep the existing long-standing para, or make it shorter. Not a major content change or Policy issue here forcing change, just an editor want to free edit into lead, and this is going the wrong way. These proposals instead about double the para in an already too-long lead, and give false impressions by the UNDUE emphasis added, making misleading insinuations.

• The phrasing about how there might be something missed is given *more* words than the combined saying Russians interfered plus Trump campaign not being found a part of the interference. The main message of the report text and coverage was *not* about how close they were except for a specific bit missing. It’s basically half in Russians with no Trump coordination found, then the other half on potential Trump Obstruction instances.
• The phrasing at cases of potential Obstruction does drop the unnecessary ‘neither indicted nor exonerated’, but now goes on about it for another two lines going into specifics like “ten” and a half-dozens cites that are neither a summary nor clarifying.
• Even the existing phrasing “encouraged” interference, and the technical-but-misleading “insufficient evidence” has been pressing the bounds - like saying “innocent”, it’s technically correct but not proper to use misleading jargon in the article. The result simply ‘did not find the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the interference’, and it can say it that simply.
• There’s also a tendency to awkward and overlong phrasing — “to establish specific criminal charges related to” can be shortened into “for charges of”, “also personally investigated” can be just “investigated”.
• So no, leave it as is. The proposed phrasings are too long and seems worse content than the existing. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:16, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't say the current version is "longstanding". Anyway to your other concern, MrX has proposed shorter wording. SPECIFICO talk 01:36, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Nope, not shorter than the existing. And I again see awkward phrasing and UNDUE emphasis. Note the “did not find sufficient evidence” is misguided, then followed by a repetition “The Investigation was hampered by incomplete evidence.”. A simple “did not find conspiracy or coordination” is what the result and coverage was, as a distant third to the two volumes main messages of ‘found Russian’ and ‘possible obstruction’. A footnote to the conclusion ‘did not find’ should be smaller than “did not find”, and not repeated twice. You are correct that it is not “long-standing.” Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:11, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Trump Iran links, add?

• Sketchy Donald Trump Deal Eyed For Ties To Iran on YouTube MSNBC March 6, 2017
• Adam Davidson (March 13, 2017). "Donald Trump's Worst Deal; The President helped build a hotel in Azerbaijan that appears to be a corrupt operation engineered by oligarchs tied to Iran's Revolutionary Guard". The New Yorker.

X1\ (talk) 22:48, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

X1\ Please suggest relevant text and placement. — JFG ^talk 14:29, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Veracity graphs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Numbers ("detail"?) have been removed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Strong support. The charts immediately convey a significant veracity trend—and without being "too detailed". Though details went into making the graph, readers are not slave to details since the trend is immediately apparent. Regarding Consensus Item 37: the historic levels and conspicuous escalation pattern of false claims are definitely "likely to have a lasting impact on his life and/or long-term presidential legacy", and probably on the presidency itself. Disclosure: I am the one who created and uploaded the chart. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:56, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Strong support. Good job to whoever created the chart. Wikipedia needs more graphs and figures to communicate info clearly and simply, not less. I suggest this chart also gets added to the Presidency of Donald Trump article, where its addition would allow us to trim some text which explains what goes on in the chart. Trump's lying is a defining feature of his character and of his presidency, so it clearly meets DUE. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:38, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

False statements

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

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

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

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

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

My comments have been about the inherent illogic of that argument.[12] As for actual user behavior:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Red herrings

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

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

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

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

Mixed-Martial Arts/UFC

Donald Trump has a longstanding relationship with the sport of mixed martial arts, specifically with the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) promotion. On Saturday, November 2nd, President Donald Trump became the first sitting United States President to attend a mixed martial arts event when he attended UFC 244, Diaz vs. Masvidal for the BMF title. In an interview during the post-fight press conference, UFC president Dana White spoke with reporters about the president’s attendance at the event. According to White, he and Trump have been close since the UFC was purchased by Zuffa LLC, owned by Frank and Lorenzo Fertitta, with Dana White as the company’s president. During this time, the UFC battled controversy surrounding the public perception of MMA. Such controversy made it difficult for the UFC to find venues willing to allow their events. Donald Trump, unlike numerous other venue proprietors, gave the UFC a chance, hosting the first two Zuffa LLC run UFC events at Trump’s Taj Mahal hotel in Atlantic City, New Jersey. The relationship between Trump and Dana White has continued since, resulting in White making repeated visits to the White House, and speaking at the 2016 Republican National Convention. After UFC 244, UFC president Dana White also stated what an accomplishment it was for the sport of mixed martial arts to have a President of the United States attend an event. The symbolism of the president’s attendance at UFC 244 was further exacerbated by the fact that the event was held in Madison Square Garden in New York City, New York; the last state in the United States to legally recognize the sport of mixed martial arts in 2016. In addition to Dana White, fighters Derrick Lewis and BMF champion Jorge Masvidal both spoke positively after their wins at UFC 244 about President Trump’s attendance, reiterating Dana White’s statement that: “As fans of the sport, I think all of us can sort of appreciate, whatever political side you sit on, that the President of the United States came to one of our events.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobertZulloIII (talk • contribs) 00:45, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

All right, what do you propose we do with this information, given that you have provided no references? If you do choose to provide the requested references, could you please also give a few sentences summarizing that paragraph above for possible inclusion in the article? Remember, by Consensus #37, whatever we include here must be relevant to either his presidency or personal life. It also must be significantly important that it will affect either his presidency or his personal life in the long-term. Thanks. Mgasparin (talk) 07:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

This doesn't seem at all significant to me. The only significant aspect of Trump's attendance, from the point of view of reliable sources, was the fact that Trump was received by a deafening chorus of boos, and even that wasn't significant enough for inclusion. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:07, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

It wasn't even significant enough for inclusion on the big screens in the same room it happened, while it was happening. Just a PPV extra. Every single prelim fighter entered in glorious Grapplevision that night, for contrast, and there were fourteen (including six clear losers). InedibleHulk (talk) 00:29, November 8, 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, add it to the Ultimate Fighting Championship article. It would be of more interest to folks likely to read that article. O3000 (talk) 16:22, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Put it in..it`s relevant. 2600:1702:2340:9470:AD6A:B88F:5C9A:87D4 (talk) 22:46, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Too trivial to include in this article. He goes to events all the time; we don't report them all. And if we are going to report every time he gets cheered or booed in public, we will need a whole separate article. (No, that was NOT a suggestion.) -- MelanieN (talk) 22:34, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Then why did you bring it up ? There are uncountable trivial articles here a lot less significant then the president of the US being jeered by his constituents on a regular basis.2600:1702:2340:9470:801A:F03D:9F40:E92 (talk) 23:33, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Of all the reaction articles on this site, none is perhaps more strangely absent than Reactions to Donald Trump. We've all seen and read about them, in some category or another. Melanie's right, it's time we gave the mob a cohesive and comprehensive voice, be they a raining chorus of boobirds, piping with rage or howling with laughter. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:10, November 8, 2019 (UTC)

Bankruptcies and branding

I have reverted two edits by SPECIFICO from 19–20 October that had escaped scrutiny until today.[13][14] The modified wording implied that the Trump Organization diversified into branding as a reaction to bankruptcies suffered in the 1980s and 1990s. First, I don't know whether there's an established connection, as Trump was keen on slapping his name on other people's businesses long before his casino ventures failed: two of the sources mention an example of that branding fever, with the gold-plated "Trump Cadillac" marketed in 1988. Second, edit summaries said "per sources", and after reading all cited sources, I do not see that they make any link between the bankruptcies and the branded ventures. For reference, I have listed below all the sources cited in the "Branding and licensing" paragraph, and SPECIFICO did not add any new source with those edits. Therefore, the assertion injected into the article and its lead section looks like WP:Synthesis and cannot stand. — JFG ^talk 10:00, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

The very first source, early on, says The ventures enable him to hang the Trump logo on towers from India to Panama without chipping in a dime. etc. etc. I think your concern is overstated. The time sequence is known. Yes he branded much of his work whenever possible, but the strategy of branding with only carried interest and no capital required or invested is documented to have developed at the time referenced in both versions. Moreover, the juxtaposition of "expanded beyond NY and "branding & licensing" in the version you restored is SYNTH also untrue. He branded and licensed in New York, e.g. in Riverside South after he gave up most of his ownership in the largest share developed in the 1990's. If there is a source that links branding with "outside NY", I don't see it. SPECIFICO talk 23:52, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Sources

Amend consensus #13

#Current consensus #13 currently reads:

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

Number 13 has proven to be very helpful, but I propose two improvements, as follows.

• For a long time we have treated "answered" edit requests as closed discussions for the purpose of manual archival per #13. There is no reason to keep answered edit requests around for the full seven days. I personally have allowed exception to that if there was any follow-on discussion after the "answer"; i.e. in that case I treated it as a normal discussion thread. There has been some confusion about this on a couple of occasions.
• While we're at it, we could clarify that we can't manually archive a closed discussion after 24 hours if there has been a challenge to the close in that time. Again, that has been the practice, but it's better to have the consensus and the practice in agreement.

Proposed text:

Auto-archival is set for discussions with no replies for 7 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".

• Support as proposer. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:14, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Amend #13 counter-proposal

• Counter-proposal:

  "Auto-archival is set for discussions with no replies for 7 days. Manual archival is allowed for (1) closed discussions, 24 hours after the closure, provided the closure has not been challenged, (2) "answered" edit requests, 24 hours after the "answer", provided there has been no follow-on discussion after the "answer", and (3) edit requests that do not conform to instructions, archivable at any time.

This will help keep frivolous requests and trolling off the talk page.- MrX 🖋 15:36, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• Why did I think this would be simple and straightforward? I'll Oppose that as a bit harsh even for me. Obvious trolling obviously goes straight to the trash, and no reasonable person would interpret my proposed text as protection for obvious trolling. Per AGF, if there is any room to believe that the user might be acting in good faith (even total incompetence is not bad faith), then they deserve a response and the 24-hour wait.

  For example, the edit request immediately preceding [now archived]. It's just possible that the user actually saw some spelling errors, didn't know they had to be specific, and would be specific if challenged and given the chance. And we would fix some spelling errors that we weren't aware of.

  Similarly, an edit request that is more specific but not specific enough, but otherwise looks like good faith, deserves a response and the 24-hour wait. We could even write a canned response and save it somewhere. Remember, these requests rarely come from people who know how to use the page history, so they won't see your edit summary on the removal; all they will know is that their request disappeared. Oh but wait, the One-Click Archiver doesn't let you enter an edit summary, so knowing how to use the page history would be no help as to understanding what they did wrong.

  Let's err on the side of trust, particularly when the cost of doing so is so low. Simply throwing things away should be used with extreme discretion. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:13, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

  Who knew it would be controversial to move an unactionable edit request to the archives. There is a reason why Wikipedia is not based on firm, bureaucratic rules. If you think such a request merits a response, then perhaps responding on the user's talk page would be best. I'm suspicious about an ungrammatical request to fix unspecified spelling errors on a 15,962 word article. - MrX 🖋 16:37, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

  If you're right, and you probably are, that request will harmlessly occupy a little space on the page for the next 18 hours and then will be gone. If they respond with something that makes their trolling intent clearer, it will be gone even sooner. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:43, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Amend #13 counter-counter-proposal

• Counter-counter-proposal:

  "All archiving is handled by Mandruss as Mandruss sees fit, because if it ain't broke...

You know it makes sense. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:15, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• Damn skippy. And that's Mr. Mandruss from now on. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:16, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support, but oppose giving him the title until he's paid his dues and proven himself more reliable than Mr. Sigmabot III. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:44, November 7, 2019 (UTC)
• Support. The obvious is never a problem. Guy (help!) 23:17, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Corporate raider revisited

In May I added this under Side Ventures...

The New York Times reported in May 2019 that in the late 1980s Trump fashioned himself as a corporate raider by buying minority stakes in publicly-held companies and announcing he intended to acquire majority stakes. The announcement would cause a "bump" in the stock's price, at which point Trump quietly sold his stake for a profit. The Times reported that Trump ultimately lost back most or all of his gains after other investors concluded he was not seriously attempting takeovers.

...which was reverted and discussed, without an apparent consensus, then just kinda...faded away. Funny how that happens sometimes.

I propose we reconsider this material, and actually consider expanding it because there's quite a lot of historical reliable source reporting about it, some of which is in the Talk link above. soibangla (talk) 03:06, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Too minor for the main biography. Worth including (briefly) in Business career of Donald Trump. — JFG ^talk 08:44, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

This is very interesting biographical information. I would support it if someone can identify at least three strong sources to show that it's noteworthy.- MrX 🖋 13:30, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Soibangla, I'm with JFG on this one. Guy (help!) 14:08, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, I think this is unremarkable. There are thousands of these types (individuals and corporations) doing this sort of thing. It makes Trump look bad, but so does literally everything else he does. I agree with JFG's proposal. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:34, 8 November 2019 (UTC)