Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:46, 26 October 2019

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Donald Trump article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187Auto-archiving period: 7 days

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

Want to add new information about Donald Trump? Most often, it should not go here. Please consider choosing the most appropriate article, for example: Timeline of the Donald Trump presidency (2025 Q1) List of presidential trips made by Donald Trump (2025) Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration Donald Trump on social media Trump–Ukraine controversy Impeachment of Donald Trump ... or dozens of other places, as listed in {{Donald Trump series}}. Thanks!

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances) You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Further information Enforcement procedures: Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense. With respect to the WP:1RR restriction: Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as obvious vandalism. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion. Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance. Whenever you are relying on one of these exemptions, you should refer to it in your edit summary and, if applicable, link to the discussion where consensus was clearly established. The contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topics sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Arts and Entertainment / Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Top-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Business Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WikiProject Donald Trump Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. New York City High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Conservatism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics: American Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Top-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: Television / Presidential elections / Presidents / Government Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American television task force (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject United States Presidents (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as High-importance). Template:WP1.0

	Readership
This was the most viewed article on Misplaced Pages for the week of December 6–12, 2015; January 31–February 6, February 21–27, February 28–March 5, March 6–12, March 13–19, October 9–15, October 16–22, November 6–12, and November 13–19, 2016; January 15–21 and January 22–28, 2017, according to the Top 25 Report.

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Cuozzo, Steve (November 16, 2013). "Don't Trust Anything on Misplaced Pages". New York Post. Popper, Ben (July 22, 2015). "Someone just deleted Donald Trump's entire Misplaced Pages page". The Verge. Merrill, Jeremy (February 1, 2016). "On Misplaced Pages, Donald Trump Reigns and Facts Are Open to Debate". New York Times. Germ, Erik (May 28, 2016). "5 Secretly Bizarre Sections Of Websites You Use Every Day". Cracked.com. Guo, Jeff (October 25, 2016). "Misplaced Pages is fixing one of the Internet's biggest flaws". The Washington Post. Alcantara, Chris (October 27, 2016). "The most challenging job of the 2016 race: Editing the candidates' Misplaced Pages pages". The Washington Post. Staff Writer (December 21, 2016). "Most-edited Misplaced Pages pages of 2016 revealed". BBC News. Gartenberg, Chaim (January 20, 2017). "Misplaced Pages editors can't decide if Trump is the president yet". The Verge. Wyrich, Andrew (June 5, 2017). "Someone is trying to get Trump's official portrait deleted from Misplaced Pages". The Daily Dot. Warren, Tom (22 November 2018). "Siri thinks Donald Trump is a penis". The Verge. Blumenthal, Eli (22 November 2018). "Misplaced Pages vandalizing causes Siri to show a lewd image when asked about Donald Trump". USA Today. Griffin, Andrew (23 November 2018). "Asking Siri for information about Donald Trump shows explicit image after Misplaced Pages edit". The Independent. Gander, Kashmira (23 November 2018). "Someone hacked Donald Trump's Misplaced Pages page, replaced photo with image of penis". Newsweek. Martin, Alan (26 November 2018). "The Trump penis Misplaced Pages war has kicked off again". The Inquirer. Brandom, Russell (December 4, 2018). "Misplaced Pages engages the 'nuclear option' after Trump penis hack". The Verge. Mak, Aaron (May 28, 2019). "Donald Trump's Misplaced Pages Entry Is a War Zone". Slate.

Donald Trump was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones Date Process Result June 2, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed February 12, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed September 18, 2016 Good article nominee Not listed May 25, 2017 Good article nominee Not listed December 2, 2018 Good article nominee Not listed July 15, 2019 Good article nominee Not listed August 31, 2019 Featured article candidate Not promoted News items involving this article were featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "In the news" column on June 12, 2018, and November 9, 2018. Current status: Former good article nominee

Template:Vital article

Other talk page banners

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. Health of Donald Trump was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 13 June 2019 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Donald Trump. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Donald Trump article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187Auto-archiving period: 7 days

Section sizes Section size for Donald Trump (91 sections) Section name Byte count Section total (Top) 9,137 9,137 Early life and education 3,393 3,393 Business career 149 35,384 Real estate 4,555 15,956 Manhattan and Chicago developments 6,170 6,170 Atlantic City casinos 3,610 3,610 Clubs 1,621 1,621 Licensing the Trump name 1,364 1,364 Side ventures 7,220 7,220 Foundation 5,025 5,025 Legal affairs and bankruptcies 2,315 2,315 Wealth 3,355 3,355 Media career 3,445 5,107 The Apprentice and The Celebrity Apprentice 1,662 1,662 Early political aspirations 5,185 5,185 2016 presidential election 18,733 18,733 First presidency (2017–2021) 1,512 175,136 First presidency early actions 1,722 1,722 Conflicts of interest 3,372 3,372 Domestic policy 20,094 20,094 Race relations 6,410 6,410 Pardons and commutations 2,574 2,574 Immigration 3,112 20,429 Travel ban 4,347 4,347 Family separation at the border 6,273 6,273 Mexico–United States border wall and government shutdown 6,697 6,697 First presidency foreign policy 2,876 36,053 First presidency foreign policy: Trade 2,550 2,550 Russia 4,226 4,226 East Asia 21 10,653 China, Hong Kong, Taiwan 4,914 4,914 North Korea 5,718 5,718 First presidency foreign policy: Middle East 56 15,748 Afghanistan 3,042 3,042 Israel 2,637 2,637 Saudi Arabia 2,229 2,229 Syria 3,797 3,797 Iran 3,987 3,987 Personnel 8,705 8,705 Judiciary 4,174 4,174 COVID-19 pandemic 291 30,415 Initial response 7,145 7,145 White House Coronavirus Task Force 4,747 4,747 World Health Organization 2,673 2,673 Pressure to abandon pandemic mitigation measures 7,799 7,799 Political pressure on health agencies 2,690 2,690 Outbreak at the White House 2,667 2,667 Effects on the 2020 presidential campaign 2,403 2,403 Investigations 1,079 26,089 Financial 3,111 3,111 Russian election interference 6,491 6,491 FBI Crossfire Hurricane and 2017 counterintelligence investigations 2,573 2,573 Mueller investigation 12,835 12,835 First impeachment 10,202 10,202 Second impeachment 3,385 3,385 2020 presidential election 34 23,357 Loss to Biden 6,907 15,674 Rejection of results 8,767 8,767 January 6 Capitol attack 7,649 7,649 Between presidencies (2021–2025) 5,214 25,243 Legal issues 21 20,029 Classified documents 4,973 4,973 2020 election 5,415 5,415 2016 campaign fraud case 3,165 3,165 Civil lawsuits and judgments 6,455 6,455 2024 presidential election 16,640 16,640 Second presidency (2025–present) 1,821 6,480 Second presidency early actions 2,109 2,109 Second presidency foreign policy 557 2,550 Second presidency foreign policy: Trade 708 708 Second presidency foreign policy: Middle East 1,285 1,285 Political practice and rhetoric 9,211 54,272 Racial and gender views 9,366 9,366 Link to violence and hate crimes 10,576 10,576 Conspiracy theories 3,317 3,317 Truthfulness 10,483 10,483 Social media 5,810 5,810 Relationship with the press 5,509 5,509 Personal life 18 6,205 Family 1,323 1,323 Health 3,697 3,697 Religion 1,167 1,167 Assessments 18 6,969 Public image 4,516 4,516 Scholarly rankings 2,435 2,435 Notes 136 136 References 30 30 Works cited 18 12,053 Books 3,216 3,216 Journals 8,819 8,819 External links 5,709 5,709 Total 409,169 409,169

Highlighted open discussions

• #RfC: books in lead

• v
• e

NOTE: It is recommended to link to this list in your edit summary when reverting, as:
] item
To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to purge this page.

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

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

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

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 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)

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)

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 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". (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)

22. Do not call Trump a "liar" in Misplaced Pages'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)

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)

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 preclude bringing up for discussion whether to include media coverage relating to Trump's mental health and fitness. 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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Reply briefly with a link to Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias, optionally using its shortcut, WP:TRUMPRCB.
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" 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)

68. Do not expand the brief mention of Trumpism in the lead. (RfC January 2025)

RfC: books in lead

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

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

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 (equally weighted). For me, this is a binary thing. Either we use the accurate "has had published" language (which I freely admit is a little awkward), or we don't have anything at all. Trump is not a publisher or an author, so options A or B would be inaccurate. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:39, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
• Option B or Option A - One need not be a publishing company to have something published, as per the dictionary definition of the word. May His Shadow Fall Upon You 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 14:06, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

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

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

C is also OK. D is preferable to A. SPECIFICO talk 13:19, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

• Option D. Too messy: you can't easily mention the books without getting into the weeds of his not having written them. Guy (help!) 20:20, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
• Option A He's a credited author, and that's what we can verify. Art of the Deal is an important book in terms of what it did to his Q score, so I'm against Option D. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:53, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
• Option A (Summoned by bot) Coretheapple (talk) 19:00, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
• First choice A, second choice B – Totally oppose D, because The Art of the Deal has been a key element of Trump's notability, decades before he entered politics, hence DUE for the lead section. — JFG 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 20:17, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

• Option A - I agree the focus should be on "author", and A fits the bill. _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. Cullen Let's discuss it 06:02, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
• Option D UNDUE in the lead. If it is included, Option C. Casprings (talk) 13:06, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
• Option A. He is credited as a co-authored, even though he likely didn't co-write the book. Nonetheless, what's verifiable is that he is credited as a co-author, regardless of whether he participated in the writing or not. In light of Option A, Option C is just nonsense and screams of bias. EyeTruth (talk) 22:21, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
• Option D He didn't write the books published under his name, any more than he built the gaudy towers likewise. Deal with the books in the appropriate section, where we can include the full story. Anything we say in the lede is going to be UNDUE or misleading. --Pete (talk) 22:27, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
• Option D per Cullen328, Skyring aka Pete, et al. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:06, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
• Option A. This is true and simple.Jack Upland (talk) 08:27, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Discussion for books in lead

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 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 Misplaced Pages: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 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)

Preferred description for the Mueller report

The following discussion 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.

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

Choice 1: (Suggested Version) A special counsel investigation did not find sufficient evidence to establish criminal charges of conspiracy or coordination with Russia, but found that the Trump campaign welcomed the foreign interference under the belief that it was politically advantageous.

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

!Votes

• Choice 1 Aside from the wording, which might be improved, Choice 1 accurately conveys Mueller's finding. Mueller was acting in the role of a prosecutor, so when he says "not establish" it means he did not have admissible evidence to charge with a crime. But he also went to pains to explain that this was largely due to extensive evasion, obstruction, destruction of evidence, and failure to cooperate with the investigation. And Volume 2 documents numerous incidents of obstruction in detail. SPECIFICO talk

• 'Added Choice 3 option: "he also went to pains to explain that this was largely due to extensive evasion, obstruction, destruction of evidence, and failure to cooperate with the investigation. And Volume 2 documents numerous incidents of obstruction in detail." Incorporates both Choice 1 and Starships recommendation. Oldperson (talk) 01:12, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

It really is better if you just voice your preference for 1 or 2 and we will work out the details after consensus becomes clear. When editors start adding additional alternatives, the process never converges and the issue becomes less, not more clear. Almost always. Please see whether you can choose one and then add whatever comment you'd like. SPECIFICO talk 01:31, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

• EXCLUDE, WRONG ARTICLE FOR IT - As previously discussed and long-standing content consensus was nothing. I think per discussions in archive 96 on Mueller in lead that it’s a Presidency topic and not for his bio. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:35, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
• I don't care which. Just include one of them. This topic is WP:DUE for the lede and protects Trump's BLP by asserting that they were not charged on this particular count. starship.paint (talk) 04:08, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
• Choice 1 accurately characterizes the Mueller Report's findings, and avoids the weasel wordy "were suspected" language. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 17:59, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
• Choice 1 for the reasons stated by "May His Shadow Fall Upon You". Mgasparin (talk) 05:51, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
• Choice 1 is an improvement over the current version (2). Of course we need to keep the sentence that follows: "Trump was also personally investigated for obstruction of justice, and was neither indicted nor exonerated.".- MrX 🖋 21:19, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
• Choice 2 --MONGO (talk) 21:35, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
• Choice 2 sums up the situation better.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:26, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
• Choice 1 more accurately summarizes the body prose, which is adequately sourced and is not currently contested. "...and was knowingly 'welcomed' by the Trump campaign under the belief that they would politically benefit from the foreign interference." This is a very significant point – not in my irrelevant judgment, but per the body of reliable sources. As always, I'm willing to consider sources that disagree, and, as almost always, nobody brings any let alone enough (I appreciate that, as it makes my job easier). ―Mandruss ☎ 00:37, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
• Choice 2: Starting the paragraph with "A special counsel investigation " would put the cart before the horse. Why was there an investigation? Because Russia interfered in the election, and Trump and his campaign were suspected of being complicit in Russia's efforts, so that's what we should state first. Also the proposed wording "the Trump campaign welcomed the foreign interference under the belief that it was politically advantageous" sounds like an incriminating statement, which contradicts the very conclusions of the Mueller Report, namely that no member of the Trump campaign, and indeed no U.S. citizen, willingly helped Russia. The worst "welcoming" that happened was that Trump Jr. took a meeting from a Russian lawyer in the belief that she would deliver politically damaging information on Hillary Clinton, and it turned out that didn't happen. — JFG 08:41, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

"which contradicts the very conclusions of the Mueller Report." No. It's a literal quote from the contents of the Mueller Report. "sounds like an incriminating statement,." Why does that prevent it from being included in the lead? Misplaced Pages isn't either a promotion or attack page. ZiplineWhy (talk) 23:23, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

The quote from the report in that article words choice 1 in the opposite order. Hrodvarsson (talk) 04:15, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

The current version (choice 2) is also lifted directly from Mueller's conclusions:

Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

I'm not against mentioning potentially incriminating statements in general, but when the inquiry's conclusion is that the alleged crime was not committed, it would be unfair, and indeed non-neutral, to keep the incriminating statement in our summary of the whole affair. Let's keep it simple. — JFG 04:41, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

But we must reflect what the preponderance of reliable sources are saying, not what the Mueller Report says. It would be non-neutral to pretend Trump wasn't gleefully happy that Russia interfered on his behalf. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, indeed. Except for Trump, Barr, and a chorus of parrots, there's been no "conclusion" that a crime was not committed. That statement is either ignorant or dishonest. Editors who've read RS discussion of the Report know this, as do editors who have read the report itself. It's been established at considerable length in prior talk page discussion, and @Starship.paint: posted one of many portions of the report relating to that fact.

Option 1 gets us to NPOV with succinct accurate wording that reflects the weight of Reliable Sources.

SPECIFICO talk 13:34, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

• Choice 1 does a far better job of summarizing what happened per reliable sources. Choice 2 doesn't get to the crux of the matter at all. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:42, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
• Choice 1 is definitely the better version. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:03, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
• Choice 2 - closer to factual and accurate. _Talk 📧 06:46, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
• Choice 1/Request Closure I believe that there is now an adequate consensus to close in favor of #1, so I'm requesting that this discussion be closed. Perhaps we can shortly create another discussion about how it should be optimally worded in a couple of days, as many of the people who chose #2/gave soft support to #1 also suggested revisions. ZiplineWhy (talk) 00:02, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

  It's only been a few days, and we are far from a WP:SNOW case. Please let the discussion unfold for a little longer. Many of the "regular" editors only check in weekly or less often. — JFG 16:34, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

  Actually, I think it is pretty clear where this is going from the two-to-one ratio in favor of choice 1. Certainly choice 1 has more than enough support to justify updating the article, and that doesn't preclude minor adjustments later. The version currently in the article is inadequate. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:27, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

• Choice 2 for the sake of brevity, as that is the main conclusion. Choice 1 worded in the opposite order, as it is in the link ZiplineWhy provided above, would be preferable to the current choice 1, though still lengthy. Hrodvarsson (talk) 04:15, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Would you support a version of #1 provided that the sentence is reordered? (e.g. "...investigation found that Trump and his campaign knowingly welcomed and encouraged Russian foreign interference under the belief that it would be a politically beneficial, but did not bring specific charges for conspiracy or collusion." I'm completely fine with the order of the sentence being rearranged. ZiplineWhy (talk) 22:55, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

• Choice 1 seems to be the most factual, accurate, BLP compliant, and NPOV. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:44, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
• Choice 1 is clearer and better reflects the nature of what took place. Ganesha811 (talk) 18:05, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Added I added the revised version to the lead, although I corrected a minor typo within the original version I submitted. (Mueller said "Trump and his campaign" instead of "campaign", etc.) Feel free to include suggested revisions to mine below. ZiplineWhy (talk) 23:57, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

@ZiplineWhy: That is not a minor typo but a substantive change. The consensus version does not specifically name Trump in the "welcoming". Please edit the lead to conform with the consensus, or simply revert yourself and reopen this discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:01, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

@ZiplineWhy: And that is not the only change you made. Consensus 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.

What you put in the lead:

A special counsel investigation found that Trump and his campaign welcomed and encouraged Russian foreign interference under the belief that it was politically advantageous, but did not find sufficient evidence to establish specific criminal charges related to conspiracy or coordination with Russia.

Sheesh! You can't do that. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:25, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

BTW, regarding your edit summary, "established consensus" is never found on "SPECIFICO's user page". Or anybody else's user page. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:33, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I take full credit for screwing up. It was how it was described by Mueller and similar to the wording in the body, so I believed that not fixing my misphrasing excluding Trump would be misleading in its own right. I might start a new thread in a few days. Again, it's my fault. Sorry. ZiplineWhy (talk) 02:47, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

@ZiplineWhy: If that was a significant error it was incumbent upon all discussion participants to catch it. Not solely your fault, if there is any fault. Thanks for fixing it. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:52, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I realize that changes to the lead on articles such as this are hard to change for a good reason. No worries! ZiplineWhy (talk) 03:07, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

@JFG: This seems worthy of a consensus #41. Care to create it to make this a "bipartisan" effort? ZiplineWhy said they "might" follow with discussion about a possible revision to the revision, but I don't see much benefit in waiting to see how that plays out; i.e. #41 would be revisable as always. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:48, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Summary of policy actions in lead section

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

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

Stats:

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

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

Oppose that level of detail about his presidency in the lead. There is simply not enough space to cover everything that's due at that level to date, let alone everything to come. I've been saying this for some time, and have been told that it would not be a problem. It's a problem, and it's going to get worse unless we change direction. I support a rewrite of that paragraph at a higher level and significantly shorter. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:25, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

We can't realistically put every policy initiative in the lead. Recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel is one that could be removed in favor of something else. The failed North Korea negotiations might be another. We could add a couple of things to the lead like immigration policy resulting in family separation. The wall doesn't merit inclusion, and deregulation is far too complicated for the lead. - MrX 🖋 11:02, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Mandruss. It needs to be trimmed, with everything being a little more generic; however, JFG is right that his stupid wall needs to be in there because it his signature policy. His foreign policy can be generically described as "isolationist" (withdrawal from international agreements, withdrawal of troops, strengthened restrictive borders with wall and travel ban) and his domestic policy can be generically described as "conservative" (tax cuts for corporations and rich people, conservative justices, promoting fossil fuel industries, spending cuts). -- Scjessey (talk) 13:32, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I strongly oppose including the wall, at least until all 1,954 miles are completed. Aspirations ≠ Achievements.- MrX 🖋 13:49, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Heck, if it was half of that, I would be fine. But right now it's really nothing much. starship.paint (talk) 14:18, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Syria withdrawal needs to go in, abandonment of American allies has caused actual bloodshed as a consequence. Trim Muslim ban, add family detentions and separations. No to the wall, it basically does not exist. Remove oil drilling. No to NATO, nothing much concrete? See if the new NAFTA can be put beside the old NAFTA. Don’t even know of trade deals with China and Japan. starship.paint (talk)

It needs to be way more generic than that. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:38, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with removing oil drilling.- MrX 🖋 13:49, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

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

@SPECIFICO and JFG: - how would you word anything on NATO since you both mentioned it? Come to think of it, He embraced Twitter as a communication tool is possible. starship.paint (talk) 14:40, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

He deprecated America's global alliances, including NATO, SEATO, and the partnerships underlying the TPP talks, the Iran Nuclear Deal, and..." For actual text, we'd have to search sources for summary descriptions and specifics. SPECIFICO talk 16:55, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Trim more!

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

Maybe even more could go, quite honestly. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:45, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

The travel ban part can be improved. He enacted a harsh measure which was very famous and swiftly legally blocked, then eventually enacted softer measures. So which should be linked? You want to remove the Justices? I would have kept the tariffs though. starship.paint (talk) 14:48, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

This is the lead. Anything that needs expanding on is already happening in the body of the article, or at links to related articles. We need brevity. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:51, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I get it, man. I didn't mean expanding upon it. I'm asking which should we include. The harsh blocked ban, or the softer ban that actually went through, because we aren't going to include both. starship.paint (talk) 14:58, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Starship.paint's version would work for me. The main issue I have with Scjessey's version is the the phrase "travel ban" is too ambiguous. If we could somehow include his myriad foreign policy fuck ups, that would be great too.- MrX 🖋 18:03, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

But do we really have WEIGHT to say the foreign policy is bumbling and not a deliberate pivot? Former administration officials are reported having said the latter. Similarly, is the travel ban an immigration policy or just redecorating? SPECIFICO talk 18:15, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

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

• Suggest: No change at this time. Take some time like a month or so to discuss — the existing content covers a lot of the topic and has been relatively unobjectionable. That said, I’d suggest shorten the travel ban and tax bits - the lead only needs to identify the bigger bits in a few words, going into the steps involved belongs elsewhere. After that, I would say just a couple words for ‘cancel DACA’, and a couple for ‘cancel NAFTA’. Keep it short. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:43, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

  No, this needs to be tightened up as much as any other part of the article, and we can't do that selectively in the way you suggest. What is needed is a more generic version of what currently exists. Less specificity! -- Scjessey (talk) 16:17, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Putting this in a green box for consideration. Lead should be summary not detail.

He deprecated America's global alliances, including NATO, other regional alliances, and the partnerships underlying the TPP talks and the Iran Nuclear Deal.

Short and sweet simple and descriptive, not narrative. SPECIFICO talk 16:54, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

So we have at least four concrete proposals including status quo. Any suggestions on how to move this forward? ―Mandruss ☎ 16:24, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I suppose the easiest way to do it would be to create an RfC and present the four choices; however, I think a couple of those choices are still a bit wordy for what we are trying to achieve. The overall goal must be to reduce the amount of content by making better use of the summary style we have chosen to adopt. And certainly anything in the lead can be a super generic summary of what is in the body. The only thing I know for certain is that the existing content, while technically correct, is waaay too long. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:34, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I think the problem of this articles length is that we are not writing in summary style. My brief one sentence summary is supported by article text and by wikilinks. We should take full advantage of wikilinks. In trimming a few sections recently I realized that there's a lot of text that is not about Trump but rather about topics that are linked to their own articles and don't need elaboration here. e.g. we do not need to describe Mar-a-Lago or the Commodore Hotel when there are articles linked. If we radically removed all such sidewise description we would have a much more focused Trump bio article. Does anyone think my one sentence version in this thread is too short? If so what could be added, keeping it in summary style? We'd need to add dismantling regulation, immigration, tax cuts, trade wars, and appointment to federal courts. SPECIFICO talk 16:42, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I do. You've deleted anything about the environment. Prior to this administration we were one of the world leaders in accepting the dangers of climate change and we were making a real start in efforts to turn the tide. But with this administration we are now one of the least environmentally responsible of all nations. Industry has been allowed to get everything they've been wanting for years and it's not going to be easy to undo the damage that's been done. This must have a mention in the lead. Gandydancer (talk) 21:15, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Good. SPECIFICO talk 21:47, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

He deprecated America's global alliances, including NATO, other regional alliances, and the partnerships underlying the Paris Climate Accords, TPP talks and the Iran Nuclear Deal. He appointed scores of Conservative and Originalist Federal judges, rolled back environmental and consumer protection regulations. and forged personal relationships with various autocratic leaders around the world.

SPECIFICO talk 21:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict--before reading your new proposal) I suppose it will end up with just the mention of the Paris Accords but it is not what I would wish for. I'd like to see something like, "Trump has made large budget cuts to programs that research renewable energy and has rolled back Obama-era policies directed at curbing climate change and limiting environmental pollution." He said right out that it was his goal to roll back everything Obama did and he's doing a pretty good job of just that. OK, reading your new proposal, that's an improvement. Gandydancer (talk) 22:05, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Meh. It reads more like a narrative and less like a concise list of facts. I still prefer the approach I outlined above, although I hybrid of the two would work. Incidentally, shouldn't "conservative", "originalist" and "federal" be uncapitalized? -- Scjessey (talk) 18:38, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

The two capitalized words are wikilinks. I suppose we could pipe from lower case. To me, if anything, this version is extremely like a list with no narration at all. But I think that's OK for the lead. SPECIFICO talk 19:41, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Signature

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

I don't think so. If you look here you will see that his signature is still roughly the same as it is in the infobox. People don't sign exactly the same way each time as we are not computers and don't "copy/paste" our signature to documents each time we sign. If you have a signature that you are certain is new and is significantly different, maybe we could discuss changing it, but I don't think that will happen. Mgasparin (talk) 23:13, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

There have been a lot of discussions on the issue, but that one is far from the only currently in the infobox! That article only supports the point ;p Erik Humphrey (talk) 23:18, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

There have been significant advances in machine learning, image processing and reasons to fear identity theft since 2009. If anyone knows a computer program who can vouch for Trump's continued authenticity, I say it's time for a change. Maybe we could simulate the scenario in a superslick silicate sandbox ten times first, in case replacement has consequences humans can't fathom, but finding out the old-fashioned way seems about right right now. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:50, October 17, 2019 (UTC)

In other words, I'm in favour of updating the image if we know it's newer and his. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:18, October 17, 2019 (UTC)

Taking a very quick look at the infobox version and the article listed above - I think they're significantly different and should be updated. And....there's been dozens of examples of trump's 'newish' signature since becoming president. i say update it to the the example! Clint.jenkins (talk) 20:24, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

File size graph

Here is a graph of the article's file size over time, starting May 2014. It shows file size at the beginning of each month. This should be useful in any discussions of file size here. Horizontal grid lines are at intervals of 100,000 bytes.

Many thanks to User:Cobaltcigs for creating this graphing script in response to my WP:VPT inquiry asking whether such a script existed. And fast! ―Mandruss ☎ 22:23, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

This is very useful indeed, and serves to remind us all of how important it is to trim the article whenever we can. Two thumbs up! -- Scjessey (talk) 16:20, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Oh gawd. So I had no idea this is the article you meant. But yes, I'd agree that its size is way out of control. ―cobaltcigs 02:51, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

So I tried trimming but got massively reverted. This is short-sighted. The article will only get bigger, with a possible impeachment, possible election campaign, and possible second term — as well as life after politics, death, legacy etc.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:37, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

In my opinion you got massively reverted because you massively trimmed. There is no way the BRD process can handle that much change at one time. People could easily dispute 20 or 30 parts of those edits, requiring us to start 20 or 30 discussions at the same time, and none of them would get the attention they needed simply because there is not enough editor time. That justifiably makes editors nervous. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:08, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

So you want a massive change, but you don't want it to happen. There is no real reason why an editor couldn't revert the removal of particular text, as actually happened. Reverting uncontroversial edits just seems to be pointless and self-destructive. If you want to trim, but have an academic conference about every punctuation mark, I don't think you're going to achieve much. If you want to go down this path, I suggest you put particular sections up for discussion and trim accordingly.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:23, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

So you want a massive change, but you don't want it to happen. I want it to happen at a reasonable pace. This is a simple enough concept that I must assume you are deliberately not hearing me. Further, I have not suggested an academic conference about every punctuation mark. Hyperbolic language suggests hyperbolic thinking, and neither is helpful. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:28, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I understand you, but I don't agree with you.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:57, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

RE: Current consensus #39: "Do not include any paragraph regarding Trump's mental health"

A Republican source inside the Trump-Pelosi meeting described attendees as "alarmed," "shaken" and "shell-shocked" by the President’s demeanor.

"He is not in control of himself. It is all yelling and screaming."

Q: "is it getting worse?"

A: "100 percent"

Q: "are you worried about his stability?"

A: "yes"

https://twitter.com/joshscampbell/status/1184953968364908545

soibangla (talk) 00:35, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

How long do we plan to keep re-raising this every 10 days? This is the same as this, with the same appropriate response. I'm not closing this one since one editor accused me of being too "aggressive" in closing the previous one, but I certainly support such a close by any other editor. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:53, 18 October 2019 (UTC) At least two editors claim that this is not in fact an attempt to modify consensus #39. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:30, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Mandruss Your point is valid. I just read consensus 39. However as I understand these consensus do not stand forever. Basically they serve their purpose to get the article off the ground, but after that the article takes on it's own development as events unfold. What we are seeing is a very serious threat to our nation and the world, not to mention thouands, maybe tens and hundreds like the Kurds. How long do we keep silent until we lose our relevancy. POTUS is melting down in public, increasingly aggressive and hostile, Threatening critics with death (yes he did, accusing them of being traitors and "what we use to do to traitors.bing, bing, bam, bam" Acknowledging that this is not a forum, I still have to ask how long do you think WP itself would last if this were not longer a democratic republic but an authoritarian dictatorship We live in an unusual era where it is possible that there will be no such thing as NPOV. We take a lot for granted.I bow out I had my say. Permission to revert,but please wait at least 12 hoursOldperson (talk) 01:22, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I understand these consensus do not stand forever. You understand correctly. The relevant policy is at WP:CCC. Consensuses do not stand forever, but a consensus that required this much editor time investment usually stands for considerably longer than two months. That's 18,000 words, if you're keeping score. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:29, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

The media can't properly evaluate Trump's mental health, but they can objectively examine his demeanor. That's fair game for this article.- MrX 🖋 01:04, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Then start the necessary RfC and brace yourself for the cries of "too soon". But anything else is a completely pointless waste of editor time. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:08, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

If you're claiming that #39 does not apply, you might want to change the heading of this section. It strongly impllies that you seek to change #39. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:08, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

In response to MrX's comment, the sources he provides describe Trump as "listless, tired, and bored even by his own standards", "yelling and screaming", "vain and vulgar, a thin-skinned narcissist", and "shaken". That is a range of emotions and psychological states. I think you could conclude that Trump shows his emotions more that is normal for someone in high office. If you found a source that said that, maybe it could be included. In any case, I don't think those articles "objectively examine his demeanor".--Jack Upland (talk) 08:09, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

We have a very firm consensus that discussions of Trump's mental health are essentially off the table, but I agree that this could be considered a separate issue that would need a corresponding change to the heading of this discussion. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:27, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

• I would oppose additions at this time, in part because this would trivialise issues of mental health. Here's a relevant discussion in The Guardian: "Donald Trump’s sanity is not the question. The real issue is how he got into office", 18 Oct 2019. --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:27, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Lighten up you editors. MrX's distinction makes sense and anyone should feel free to add well-sourced content that describes significant, unusual, or alarming behaviors. SPECIFICO talk 20:32, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I can't agree to that. There's just not a lot of sourcing for us to draw from at the moment. Moreover, I think we should be cautious adding anything new to the article when we clearly need to get a handle on the length of what we have. There's so much going on with Trump and his presidency, we simply must be very discerning. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:56, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I am not accusing anyone. I donote that it takes an extra-ordinary amount of time for any change to the article page to load,thus a testament to its length, and sadly it will only grow longer, the longer he sits in office. There has to be a point where discernment isn't perceived as censorship. A difficult task, keeping the article within reasonable bounds, that it does not in itself become an encylopedia,and admitting the relevant (and exceedingly negative) information that daily appears.

Perhaps fork off these parts with prominent instructions or invitation to click on the fork.Oldperson (talk) 21:16, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, as usual, the burden is on the editor who offers new content. But as to article length, there is so much room for cutting present text that I am not very concerned about that. There's way too much detail on topics that link to their own WP articles. I'm going to cut a lot of the real estate stuff when I get a chance. He's not going to be remembered for real estate after his initial recognition 40 years back. SPECIFICO talk 21:23, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

there is so much room for cutting present text that I am not very concerned about that. Right, editors have been making that argument for around two years, and precious little cutting has occurred, this being the result. I'm far more impressed by results than words. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:37, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I've been cutting for a couple of weeks now, without controversy or objection. If you're impressed, all the better. SPECIFICO talk 21:45, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Good for you. But we're not talking about you, we're talking about the big picture. Actually trimming is not what the article needs but rather an understanding of the "summary level" part of #Current consensus #37, and lots of rewriting at that level. We need to think "executive summary", not news-like chronology. If we're talking about specific events on specific dates, we're in most cases not at summary level. (And I should point out that #37 only applies to material related to his presidency, not to the rest of his life.) ―Mandruss ☎ 21:54, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Real estate can be trimmed like anything else, but I think it's worth bearing in mind that Trump's presidency is only going to be 3–8 years of his life. All of his life should be represented.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:45, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Apologies if I've given the impression that I disagree with that. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:41, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Mandruss Yes, political trivia is largely the problem - too many morning feeds from NYT just dumped in, too much step by step adds never redone, too many items pasted into multiple DT articles unchanged, not really appropriate for BLP. I’ve said wait 48 hours or inappropriate umpteen times or put it into Presidency instead but that only stopped a few. Unless there is general movement in TALK and edits incoming to be more selective and restrained in the political area or to cut to the chase in there, I don’t see how this #37 can get done or to say in place versus just being making way for recentism of today’s morning feed. Perhaps it would help to form some indicators or guideline principles to help like wait 48 hours, or hurdles like should be covered by at least BBC, etcetera. People could use some specifics on how to do #37 and what indicates candidates. Might be a separate thread re implementing methods ? Markbassett (talk) 11:29, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Actually I'm beginning to doubt my position on that. It could be argued that the kind of "overview" I'm thinking of would require sources at that level, lest we violate WP:SYNTH. And there aren't many sources like that until the historians etc. write their essays and books. Besides, not many Misplaced Pages editors (1) know how to write at that level and (2) have the necessary breadth and depth of knowledge about the subject matter.Might have to abandon that idea and go with "only the most important details about the presidency" (in this article); i.e., not changing the level of the content but being more selective about what to include. Perhaps #37 should be revisited? ―Mandruss ☎ 11:55, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• I would recommend against taking RFC over such a trivial item. We’ve had this topic a few times before, and the mass of other items and discussions seem unlikely to shift by this teeny tidbit. We’ve even seen a fork (that seemed a POV fork verging on ATTACK page) which later got RFD deleted. We had #21 which lasted 2 years, before a brief #36 that was replaced by #39 that’s more restrained than #21 was. I simply think the whole topic is tabloid and is more about the politically motivated and calculated PR of today than about actual concerns or events. Unless he appears on the South lawn wearing his underwear on his head or something like that, I think this topic is not worth reopening. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:42, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• Former Trump White House officials and other Republicans close to the White House are increasingly worried about President Trump’s erratic behavior. Just sayin'. soibangla (talk) 01:40, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

There are press reports all over the place, and cable news is full of Trump melting down.Heck you can see it yourself in his "helicopter interviews" and the aftermath of his Whitehouse conferences. All are the equivalent of wearing his underwear on his head. Not to mention his erratic behavior and disjoined speeches in front of his emotional support rallies.Oldperson (talk) 02:00, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Instead of pointless talk page chat, somebody with an overview of the matter should add appropriate article text -- avoiding all the pseudo-psychiatric terms and conditions. SPECIFICO talk 02:27, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

We both know this is too controversial to survive as a BOLD. So it will be reverted and we'll be right back here. I favor skipping those two steps. But you're right as to pointless chat, people should be assembling more solid sources and making arguments based on their content, instead of engaging in WP:NOTFORUM violation. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:29, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Trump awards himself a government contract How is this to be handled?

Trumps Chief of Staff announces here that the next G-7 summit will be held at Doral golf course/resort. This is not only a clear violation of the emoluments clause, The emoluments clause, also called the foreign emoluments clause, is a provision of the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 8) that generally prohibits federal officeholders from receiving any gift, payment, or other thing of value from a foreign state or its rulers, officers, or representatives.. Where and how do we handle this? Oldperson (talk) 00:36, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

We deal with it as it emerges. I don't think it warrants inclusion yet.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:36, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

While this is a clear and shocking example of self-dealing, and Doral was in the news just recently as the place where that doctored film footage showing Trump killing representatives of the media was shown, I've yet to see a lot of reliable sourcing talking about it besides a few opinion pieces. This may need a day or two in order to mature, but right now it doesn't seem like it is worth adding. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:38, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Give it a 48 hour waiting period for more facts and actual WEIGHT to show up. Probably nothing. That link only says Mulvaney thinks it will be there, not that Trump made the award. And accusations seem just confused there — there should at least be clarifying of whether allegation is domestic emoluments clause because self-dealing, or foreign emoluments clause some other nation dealing. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:12, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

It's a domestic violation (self-dealing), not a foreign emolument. By awarding himself the contract to host foreign dignitaries at Doral, he will be using the office of the presidency to personally benefit at the American taxpayer's expense. The host of the G7 summit covers all the costs, so there shouldn't be any foreign payments in this case. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:38, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Scjessey Thanks, Domestic Emoluments Clause makes more sense. Time will tell if this is matters much, but seems a high hurdle in the area where one sees historically Biden’s son getting $3 million to curry favor, the Iraq No-bid contract to Cheney’s company Halliburton KBR for a few billion, and CREW v. Trump dismissal. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:02, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Hunter Biden did absolutely nothing illegal whatsoever and the comparison is utter bullshit. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:06, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Yah, giving the son sweetheart deals instead of to the VP is not illegal, it's just obviously fishy. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:18, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

It's not even fishy. It's absolutely normal and is a common occurrence with family members of prominent politicians all over the world. Compare, for example, Jared Kushner getting bazillions of dollars from the guy who order the death of Jamal Khashoggi because his father-in-law is POTUS. By fixating on Hunter Biden, you are absolutely losing yourself in the smokescreen Trump put up in order to distract people from his crimes and misdemeanors. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:19, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

It's not a violation of the emoluments clause. While you may think you know what the term means, or meant in 1789, when was the last time you used it in a conversation? Would you say for example that your employer emolulized you? TFD (talk) 04:28, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• It's relatively easy to give this a brief mention without passing judgment on whether this violates the emoluments clause. The detail about the event probably also belongs in the articles about Trump Doral and G7 pbp 14:39, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

It seems that the golf course won't be used after all.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:30, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft

Do we need a whole paragraph on Trump avoiding the draft? It is also odd that the current paragraph doesn't mention the Vietnam War.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:15, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Why not? Bill Clinton has a four-paragraph section on the draft. Trump's bone spurs have gotten plenty of press coverage. It seems WP:DUE to me. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:21, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, and George W Bush has two paragraphs and three articles! But there are other issues here. Clinton was protesting the war, and Bush served in the National Guard. In Trump's case, there's no much that's important to say. There is an American political tradition of raising this issue. However, outside the political bubble, it's not particularly notable. Many people didn't fight in Vietnam, for whatever reason. Sylvester Stallone's article never mentions this, for example. I think it's unencyclopedic to go into this level of detail. It wasn't a major part of his life.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:51, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

But there are other issues here.

• Sylvester Stallone is not president of the United States and commander-in-chief of its armed forces.
• If it wasn't a major part of his life, that's because he successfully avoided the draft. Had he gone to Vietnam, it would've been a major part of his life and possibly the end of it. It's due to explain why that didn't happen in a wee bit more than one sentence. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:56, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Stallone has made patriotic films about the Vietnam War. By contrast, Trump is against foreign intervention. There are many events that could have changed Trump's life (accidents, diseases etc). Every able-bodied man who came to adulthood in the US, Australia, etc c. 1970 could have been conscripted into the Vietnam War, but virtually none of their pages, not even Stallone's, have any mention of this, even though it could have become a major part of their life.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Stallone is an actor! Not a commander-in-chief. It's important to note that Trump didn't serve, and the reasons why. I remember there being a recent kerfuffle over actors in shoot'em up movies who support gun control. It's nonsense. The point of acting is that you portray something that isn't you. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:11, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Unless you're Charlie Sheen in Being John Malkovich, anyway. Or Arnold Schwarzenegger in The Apprentice. Or Jesse Ventura in Predator. Or Wes Craven in Wes Craven's New Nightmare. Or the bear from The Bear. Or Omarosa from The Apprentice. Or Nancy Davis as First Lady Nancy Reagan. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:17, October 23, 2019 (UTC)

I don't think Stallone's got much of an acting range. He doesn't even seem to change his haircut. Stallone was not just an actor. He was the co-writer of Rambo: First Blood Part II and clearly played a major part in the production of the film. He was vocal in his support for Vietnam War veterans. It is therefore valid to point out that he was not one himself, though I'm not suggesting he went to Switzerland to dodge the draft.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:16, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Half of the eligible males of that era got deferments, disqualifications etc. and the fact that that war was fought by America's least privileged is old news. That said, the paragragh actually seems to be definitely needed in light of Trump maligning John McCain as well as currently being in charge of our armed forces.--MONGO (talk) 19:45, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree it should be mentioned. But a sentence could cover it.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:55, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

What would that sentence say? What details would it not include? I personally don't see how we can adequately cover the issue with less than what we currently have. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:12, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

The draft evasion paragraph is less than half the size of the religion section and a bit smaller than the New Jersey Generals paragraph. That leads me to think that it's about the right size. It doesn't contain trivial detail and it stays on topic, so I don't see any reason to remove any information.- MrX 🖋 21:34, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I would say something like "While in college, Trump obtained student and medical draft deferments which prevented him from being called up for the Vietnam War". I don't think the minute details matter. The argument that this needs to be mentioned because Trump is commander–in–chief is very much a political POV. These events or non-events happened 50 years ago.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:55, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

The argument that this needs to be mentioned because Trump is commander–in–chief is very much a political POV. That makes no sense. While there is no avoiding one's personal bias in something like this – which goes both ways, believe it or not – that is not a particularly good example of that. These events or non-events happened 50 years ago. So? It's a biography. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:18, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but the argument is that these events of 50 years ago are relevant to his presidency. They weren't part of his biography when he was just a businessman.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:32, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

In that case it was too much then, but it's not too much now. Do I have that right? ―Mandruss ☎ 07:51, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

OK. I propose this has to be part of the US presidential infobox.

Battlefield experience (minutes)= . Amount of draft deferments= . Amount of doobies smoked= . Amount of doobies smoked and inhaled= . Number of friends who are sex offenders= . Number of Mafia connections= . Average time spent doing hair each morning (minutes)= . Amount of family members on the payroll= . Average scandals per week= .

This will encapsulate all the vital information about the presidency.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:58, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Please propose that at Template talk:Infobox officeholder. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

The existing paragraph is DUE and important. IMO it is the bare minimum that needs to be said on the subject. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:06, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Why is it important? As we have established, many Americans got draft deferments, but almost all of their articles don't feature this. Maybe the issue should featured in their articles, as WW2 tends to be in many of the articles about people that were young in that period. But I don't think that Trump is an exception. The fact that a businessman had bone spurs in the 1960s is not particularly notable, and that shouldn't change if they become President or Pope. The hypocrisy of this is that many editors of Misplaced Pages also had draft deferments, but they are pretending that Trump is unique. The current paragraph has much intricate details, including those unexplained symbols. Many people who are, like me, outside the the American bubble have no clue what that even means. And the paragraph doesn't even mention the Vietnam War. As far as we know, a "draft deferment" is what Biden did when he plagiarised for his student essays. It's also crazy to talk about trimming the article and then insist on retaining a paragraph about something that didn't happen 50 years ago.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:12, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

So I went to add a clarifying wikilink for "draft deferment", only to discover that it's already there. There are a number of U.S.-specific things (taking your word that it's U.S.-specific) in this and many other articles that require links for explanation, and that's one of the main purposes for links.Most of the rest of your comment has already been responded to. This is both "something that didn't happen" and something that did happen; you can't have one without the other. Yes, the importance of BLP content can depend on who (i.e., what) the subject individual is. There is no editor "hypocrisy", as no editor is the president of the United States. Double standard? You bet. If you feel it's important enough for RfC, go ahead – but you are not going to change any minds here with arguments like that. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:49, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

How do you know no editor is the President of the United States? Some editors seem to echo Trumpian talking points.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:55, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

You shouldn't have to click a link to understand something that is relatively simple. The current text is convoluted, badly expressed, and repetitive.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:00, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Do you have a specific proposal of what should replace what we currently have? – Muboshgu (talk) 04:05, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I think what something along the lines of Joe Biden's article: "Biden received student draft deferments during this period, at the peak of the Vietnam War, and in 1968, he was reclassified by the Selective Service System as not available for service due to having had asthma as a teenager." It puts the issue in its historical context (the Vietnam War) and avoids excessive technical details and repetition.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:19, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Lawsuits against Trump

I think we should have an agreement not to include lawsuits against Trump unless and until they are successful.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:48, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

No. Most lawsuits are settled. SPECIFICO talk 12:08, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with SPECIFICO. Obviously we should only include significant lawsuits.- MrX 🖋 14:39, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I would say that a settlement is some measure of success. Given the size of the article, I think we need to exclude lawsuits that were dismissed or which are not concluded. I'm not proposing a rigid rule.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:24, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I assume that's what we're doing now. Are there any in the article that should not be?- MrX 🖋 19:48, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Include if and only if DUE in the BLP context. If it’s a lawsuit (current or past) with sufficient coverage it might even rate it’s own article and still not be appropriate to get mentioned here. There’s probably thousands of lawsuits from the course of a typical real estate practice, when the scale is billions of dollars and 50 years. And when in doubt, leave it out... the article is too big, needs to keep in mind WP:NOTEVERYTHING Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:42, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I made the comment because I'd just removed two lawsuits. They can always be documented in Legal affairs of Donald Trump and List of lawsuits involving Donald Trump.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:23, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Another Mueller lead revision suggestion

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

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

The current description omits a lot:

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

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

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

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

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

6.) More consistent with the body

7.) More clear

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

!votes

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

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 - , and another opposing view by 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, 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. _Talk 📧 04:29, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Atsme:, so your response is to attack the sources. Very well. Let me again provide 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. 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 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)

  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. .- 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)

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)

• 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. _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. _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? _Talk 📧 23:46, 25 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)

Inaccurate edit summary-Kurdish statements

ZiplineWhyPlease clarify why you removed so much RS material from this edit. Your edit summary is non descriptive and inaccurate.Oldperson (talk) 22:13, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

User:ZiplineWhy the above seems a dinged ping, meant for you. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:39, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Yep, kind of a keyboard dyslexia like typing their when I mean there or vice versa. I've got to get a hand on it.Thanks I was correcting when (ec)came up and you caught my miss steak :}Oldperson (talk) 22:43, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm confused. What reliable material was exactly removed by me? The edit you cited has no deletions in general. As for my summary, there's nothing inaccurate about it. ZiplineWhy (talk) 22:50, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Apolgies. I had trouble reading the diff page, looked like you removed a lot of content. However I am confused as to how edit summary of Kurdish statements if an accurate reflection of your edit.Oldperson (talk) 23:00, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I meant it in the sense of "Trump's statements on Rojava and the Kurds." No problem. ZiplineWhy (talk) 23:01, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

@Oldperson: Here is a screenshot of the optional wikEdDiff feature, which can be turned on using a check box at Preferences->Gadgets (under the Editing heading of the Gadgets page). The screenshot shows how wikEdDiff presents that same edit. The feature can be used instead of or in combination with the standard diff facility. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:20, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Mandruss I checked it, now to learn how to use it. Hopefully it will stop me from 'effin up. It will take time to get up to speed though.Oldperson (talk) 00:37, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Photo on other articles

I had intended to suggest Trump had too big a smile in articles that were primarily criticizing him. I see there is a different photo which I like better on Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:06, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Okay... So what? This is not a chat room for regular discussion. Mgasparin (talk) 18:50, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Was there a discussion about changing the photo, or did someone just change it?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:15, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

See #Current consensus item 1. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:55, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

That's for this article. See here.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:18, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. Since you were on Talk:Donald Trump I assumed you were talking about Donald Trump.You opened this thread before even trying one at Talk:Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump. While there has been only one reply there, suggesting that no other editors object to the change, it has been only about 26 hours since you started it. Give it some time.But don't get me started on infobox photo debates, especially Trump infobox photo debates. I won't be participating in that one. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:43, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Mandruss I wasn't going to post on the talk page of every single Trump-related article. That's why I thought here would be accceptable.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 14:08, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Vchimpanzee Some explanation -- The norm is to use the official portrait photo of an office holder and then leave it there -- for example George H. W. Bush still shows his from 1989. Hillary Clinton had the one from the start of her first term as Senator until the one from the beginning of her tenure as Secretary of State in 2009. (Though hers did change in August 2019...) That norm seems to be a bit flexible, but there were soooooooo many Trump photo discussions] that unless he gets a new official photo, it seems unlikely to change here. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:26, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

"A newly surfaced $100,000 tab charged to Irish police raises questions about Trump’s visit to his Irish golf resort"

Hi all

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

Thanks

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

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

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

Survey and discussion

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

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class biography articles
• B-Class biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Mid-importance biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Arts and entertainment work group articles
• B-Class biography (politics and government) articles
• Top-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class WikiProject Business articles
• Mid-importance WikiProject Business articles
• WikiProject Business articles
• B-Class New York City articles
• High-importance New York City articles
• WikiProject New York City articles
• B-Class Conservatism articles
• High-importance Conservatism articles
• WikiProject Conservatism articles
• B-Class politics articles
• Mid-importance politics articles
• B-Class American politics articles
• Top-importance American politics articles
• American politics task force articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• B-Class United States articles
• Top-importance United States articles
• B-Class United States articles of Top-importance
• B-Class American television articles
• Mid-importance American television articles
• American television task force articles
• B-Class United States presidential elections articles
• Top-importance United States presidential elections articles
• WikiProject United States presidential elections articles
• B-Class United States Presidents articles
• High-importance United States Presidents articles
• WikiProject United States Presidents articles
• B-Class United States Government articles
• High-importance United States Government articles
• WikiProject United States Government articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Former good article nominees
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Misplaced Pages articles that use American English