Talk:Donald Trump

Highlighted open discussions

• #RfC: Should the second sentence of the last paragraph of the lead be changed?

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

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

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

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

04. Superseded by #15

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 (Nov 2016, Dec 2016) (Superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)

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

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

07. Superseded by #35

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 (Sep 2016, February 2017, wording shortened per April 2017, upheld with July 2018) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019)

08. Superseded by unlisted consensus

Mention that Trump is the first president elected "without prior military or government service". (Dec 2016, superseded Nov 2024)

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

10. Canceled

Keep Barron Trump's name in the list of children and wikilink it, which redirects to his section in Family of Donald Trump per AfD consensus. (Jan 2017, Nov 2016) Canceled: Barron's BLP has existed since June 2019. (June 2024)

11. Superseded by #17

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

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

13. Auto-archival is set for discussions with no comments for 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)

15. Superseded by lead rewrite

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

16. Superseded by lead rewrite

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

17. Superseded by #50

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

18. Superseded by #63

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

19. Obsolete

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

20. Superseded by unlisted consensus

Mention protests in the lead section with this exact wording: His election and policies have sparked numerous protests. (June 2017, May 2018, superseded December 2024) (Note: In February 2021, when he was no longer president, the verb tense was changed from "have sparked" to "sparked", without objection.)

21. Superseded by #39

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

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

23. Superseded by #52

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

24. Superseded by #30

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

35. Superseded by #49

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

36. Superseded by #39

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

45. Superseded by #48

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

54. Include in the lead that, quote, Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in U.S. history. (RfC October 2021) Amended after re-election: After his first term, scholars and historians ranked Trump 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 habits" section includes: "Trump says he has never drunk alcohol, smoked cigarettes, or used drugs. He sleeps about four or five hours a night." (February 2021)

Veracity graphs

Uninvolved close requested at WP:ANRFC.[1] ―Mandruss ☎ 16:40, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

"Thumbnail" of image in question.
Suggested caption:
Fact-checkers from The Washington Post (top) and from the Toronto Star and CNN (bottom) compiled data on "false or misleading claims", and "false claims", respectively. The peaks in late 2018 correspond to the midterm elections, and in late 2019 to his impeachment inquiry. The Post reported 16,241 false or misleading claims in 1,095 days, an average of about 14.8 per day.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Strong support. The charts immediately, visually convey a significant veracity trend—and without being "too detailed". Regarding Consensus Item 37: the historic levels and conspicuous escalation pattern of false claims are definitely "likely to have a lasting impact on his life and/or long-term presidential legacy", and probably on the presidency itself. Disclosure: I am the one who created and uploaded the chart. 19:56, 5 November 2019 (UTC) Supplemental: Consensus^2019-11-19 (see "Discussion summary", below) recognizes that visuals are superior to text.^{(sourced explanation, FYI)} The two main Opposers argue that the chart is too detailed for this 'parent' article, despite the longtime presence (implied consensus) of an electoral map and excruciating textual detail in the second paragraph of the "False statements" section—which text the two Opposers actually disagree about (here and here). Accordingly, it's a question about "where to draw the detailed-vs-summary line", about which consensus has spoken (see "Discussion summary", below). —Updated RCraig09 (talk) 20:02, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Cheers @Markbassett. Fact-checking is not a wp:pov violation, and the highly notable nature of Trump's veracity issue ensures it doesn't violate wp:undue. Second, it's not about how a chart affects Trump (!); it's about whether it succinctly present facts about Trump. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:28, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• User:RCraig09 Nope, ‘highly notable’ is disproven by this doesn’t have WEIGHT. A “highly notable” item is shown by facts in WEIGHT of actually *being* highly noted. It would get a pass on that for his BLP if it actually was significant in his life. But there is no BLP significance. There simply is not frequent mentions of numeric totals nor any impact resulting from them - and this OR of the week by week variation comparison is pretty much just an odd display of no meaning or impact. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:01, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Hello again, User:Markbassett! Lack of veracity is an integral part of Trump's life: a Google search for "Trump lies" yields 693,000,000 results (2019-11-12) and the oft-cited WashPost fact-checking specifically states that Trump made 13,435 false or misleading claims since inauguration. Are you saying that Trump's ignoring the fact-checkers implies that fact-checking results are not a notable element of his life? That's backwards. . . . And definitely: newspaper fact-checking isn't my WP:OR. . . . P.S. WashPost and TorontoStar show monthly and weekly totals, respectively, and are consistent; also, TorontoStar stopped in June 2019 because the fact-checker resigned and not because of "lack of interest"! —RCraig09 (talk) 05:30, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• User:RCraig09 The article already covers that. Now as to my inputs for *this* proposal being added... Read the already-stated points in DISCUSSION section. The material in the proposed content is UNDUE, relevant hits down in the thousands not hundreds of millions. Try googling for the content proposed instead of vague topical area, looking at coverage of the Toronto Star defunct count, and for complex detailing of ‘this weeks count’ format which is the proposed display. If the proposal is to show Trump ignores fact-checkers (a) that’s unclear from a varying ‘this weeks count’ bar versus there already exists a better presentation in article text (and a whole details article) for the topic, and (b) the proposal as given has not met the WP:ONUS to show WP:V and WP:WEIGHT. Look, it’s loosely interesting that some WP editor crafted a mashup showing the two counters did not agree in details, but that just doesn’t have national press and has not had BLP effects on Trump to make it suitable for a BLP article. Not every possible presentation of everything possible belongs in the BLP article. And reiterating article content as a caption to a diagram that doesn’t show the captioned text... ? Does not relate to my inputs, put it down in general Discussion area. Markbassett (talk) 11:21, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Whoa. The "proposed content" (graph) shows the general topic (veracity), not merely weekly "complex detailing"; therefore the 693,000,000 Google hits figure is probative of wp:weight. . . . Googling —— "13,435" Trump (lies or false or misleading) —— (2019-11-12) shows 12,200 hits for this one WashPost finding alone. . . . Journalist fact-checking epitomizes WP:V! . . . The weekly chart is consistent with the monthly chart. . . Again, your reference that the charts have "not had BLP effects on Trump" has the analysis backward; content is supposed to describe Trump, and it does. . . . Good day, sir. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:26, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• And for me... The diagram shows a complex detail of dozens of bars varying in height, with Toronto Star counts different from Washington Post. The google of “13,435” being only 12,200 out of over 1,300,000,000 Trump items would show UNDUE - except that’s not actually *in* the diagram. The count of either paper just wasn’t widely present week to week, let alone a comparing counts of these two across time that this diagram involves. Markbassett (talk) 01:35, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• Strong support. Good job to whoever created the chart. Wikipedia needs more graphs and figures to communicate info clearly and simply, not less. I suggest this chart also gets added to the Presidency of Donald Trump article, where its addition would allow us to trim some text which explains what goes on in the chart. Trump's lying is a defining feature of his character and of his presidency, so it clearly meets DUE. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:38, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - Undue, POV, and weight concerns as described by others above. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 15:28, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

@May His Shadow Fall Upon You: How can two fact-checkers' study of Trump's extremely notable^{(ergo not violating wp:undue or wp:weight)} veracity be a wp:pov violation? Your claim that fact-checking is POV, is the POV violation, true? —RCraig09 (talk) 17:20, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

@RCraig09 - The problem I have with this chart (as well as anything along these lines) is that the term "false and misleading" is not particularly clear. By its very nature, the chart cannot explain that. Does it include deliberate falsehoods? Does it include mistakes? You could go on and on. Because this is a BLP, we should be concerned about those kinds of issues. Discussion about alleged falsehoods should occur solely in prose. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 22:04, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Actually, @MHSFUY, the language "false and misleading" is clear: as one would expect of fact checkers, the charted data makes no judgment about Trump's deliberateness, as explained further in the sources. That explanation could be easily added to the image's caption here, if needed. —RCraig09 (talk) 07:42, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support Graphs are the very best way to portray information. You can't attend a conference without being exposed to a graph or chart. Oldperson (talk) 02:13, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  @Oldperson: I agree, but nobody is saying graphs aren't a good way to portray information. My objection is that in this summary style article, we don't actually need this information. We only need the summary that says Trump tells an unprecedented number of lies. Let Veracity of statements by Donald Trump be the place where we go into the specifics of the frequency and trend of his lies. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:16, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  By your interpretation of wp:ss, @Scjessey:, would this article have one single sentence describing Trump's false statements: "Trump has made an unprecedented number of false or misleading claims" ? Same question to User:Mandruss. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:24, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  My preference would be that we would keep the first paragraph of Donald Trump#False statements (although I'm not a fan of the way the third sentence is currently worded) and eliminate the second. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:48, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  No, one sentence would not be enough WP:WEIGHT for the (quantity × quality) of RS coverage. I would differ with Scjessey on this point, as I don't think four sentences would be enough weight, either. The status quo is fine with me for now. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:11, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose The charts would give undue weight to a POV talking point. In many cases the allegedly false statements are based on fact-check sites that are themselves biased, and can take a slight error and blow it up into a supposed bald-faced lie. There is already enough language in the article stating that Trump repeatedly makes false statements. We don't need the POV further amplified with charts and graphs. Besides, if this is how the Trump article is treated, why not do the same for every prominent politician? We could make a whole chart up showing statements like "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor", "57 states", etc. But of course that would be equally ridiculous. GlassBones (talk) 13:35, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

  It sounds like you're simply, personally accusing fact-checkers at The Washington Post and Toronto Star of being biased—which would undercut WP's reliance on WP:RSs. Also, adding the charts would allow deletion of some of the second paragraph of the "False statements" section of the article (suggested here by Scjessey), so adding the charts wouldn't be just "amplifying" existing textual content. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:58, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

  Just because Scjessey suggested that, you can't assume that his suggestion would be followed – but that's what you did.

  @GlassBones - If a large fraction of the Post's 13,435 fact-checking items could be shown to be exaggerations or worse, there is little doubt that Trump supporters would have ponied up the cash for a website to do just that. Since that website does not exist, we can assume that the Post's fact-checking is solid for the most part, and solid fact-checking is not simply "POV talking point". ―Mandruss ☎ 18:32, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

  @GlassBones: - your whataboutism doesn't fly, especially when Trump is a whole different animal. He lies as a policy. academic access needed. starship.paint (talk) 15:42, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support per e.g. SPECIFICO and Mgasparin. I have read through the Oppose votes, and the most prevalent argument there - that the graphs would represent too much "detail" - stand in contrast to the fact (by now widely accepted based on research about communication) that infographicss are often able to convey basic information to readers more quickly and easily than text. Also, there appear to be no serious concerns about the validity of the underlying data itself. Regards, HaeB (talk) 10:50, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

  @HaeB: My opposition argument is not that the the graphs are too much detail, but that they are too much detail for this top-level biography. The article Veracity of statements by Donald Trump already contains the graphs prominently in its lead, and that article is readily accessible from this article via the {{Main}} hatnote link at the top of the "False statements" section – the very section where the graphs are proposed. Unlike some editors, I don't claim my position is self-evident, but I just wanted to be sure you understood it. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:11, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - I disagree with the POV claims. One should read the sources in the article, here - that Trump's falsehoods are HUGE. Believe me, many people say that. starship.paint (talk) 15:42, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support monthly graph only – A graph is indeed more communicative than many words, but two graphs are overkill, especially as they convey essentially the same message. — JFG ^talk 19:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

  @JFG: I had purposely graphed a second fact-checker's findings ("false claims"), as confirmation of the credibility of the first fact-checker's findings ("false or misleading claims". To me, the juxtaposed graphs project credibility. —RCraig09 (talk) 22:17, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - unencyclopedic, useless trivia. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:02, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion summary (veracity graphs)

• The following list condenses eleven (11+) desktop-screenfuls of discussion, to help gauge consensus and reasoning.*::
• Though I consider the following to be "my" list, you are welcome to add or correct information to your own entry—provided you keep it extremely brief: about eight words per argument; I may edit. Longer arguments should be added in text outside this summary list. Use " <br> - " to separate lines within your box. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:08, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• Thumbnail image is above. Link to image page: File:2017- Donald Trump - graph - false or misleading claims.png —RCraig09 (talk) 16:08, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Editor	Support or Strong Support	Oppose
MrX	-"excellent format for conveying info" -"possibly most compact way of conveying" -"consider people who seek visual information" (other images, electoral map) -Charts are about Trump's "core personality style" -"one of the most reported and enduring aspects of his life" -quantify and organize to "help our readers better understand"
Mandruss		-"Graphs are detail data" -Graphs not "summary level" (Consensus#37) -Already covered in prose -Already too much presidency content in this article -Graphs readily accessible in lead of Veracity -Generally bad policy to assume {{Main}} hatnote links will not be followed by readers interested in details
Scjessey		-"Shunt" "fine detail" to Veracity article, per WP:SS -Thumbnails are "tiny" -"specifics and trendlines... are of secondary importance" -"text is far more accessible than the graphs" (blind people)
SPECIFICO	-"factual diagram... quickly conveys... summary information" -Many web browser searchers (Users) "come for quick overview... not highly likely to pursue links to detail articles" -"the graphic delivers real value to a lot of our users"
PackMecEng		-"seems more appropriate for the Veracity article not here"
Jack Upland		-"I see no reason to include them"
Mgasparin	-"clear, easy to understand"... "covered by RS"
Symmachus Auxiliarus	-(no explicit "Support" but content is supportive) -"almost certainly... summary level... exactly sort of graphic most articles dream of"
BullRangifer	-"picture is worth a thousand words... serves very good purpose" -"RS and fact-checkers": WP depends on RSs
Pete	-"graph is summary, almost by definition" -"easily grasped by looking at the visual representation of data" -graphs "summarise information and present it in an easily-grasped form." -"defining characteristic of the man"
O3000	-"...defining part of his lifelong career"
Markbassett		- UNDUE emphasis - relatively nothing in coverage of counts week-by-week ... one discontinued for lack of interest. - Not BLP material, this count or chart has shown no enduring impact to his life. - In details article, no need to elevate / duplicate. - UNCLEAR - juxtaposing complex bar charts of weekly counts that don’t agree has unclear meaning. (Seems clearer and shorter to just write a narrative sentence.)
Snooganssnoogans	-"graphs to communicate info clearly and simply" -"defining feature of (Trump's) character and of his presidency... clearly meets DUE"
May His Shadow Fall Upon You		-"Undue, POV, ... weight concerns" per others above -In BLP: "discussion about falsehoods should occur solely in prose" -"term 'false and misleading' is not particularly clear"
Oldperson	-"Graphs are the very best way to portray information."
GlassBones		-"undue weight to a POV talking point"
HaeB	-Re detail: "infographics...often able to convey...more quickly and easily than text" -"no serious concerns about the validity of the underlying data"
JFG	-"graph is indeed more communicative than many words" -Monthly graph only: two graphs are "overkill"
Atsme		-"unencyclopedic, useless trivia"
___
RCraig09 (disclosure: is chart uploader)	-Chart, esp thumbnail, not unduly "detailed" under WP:SS    ↳ Text has long recited(implied consensus) more !"detail" -Falsehoods are Trump's hallmark: WP:DUE -Fact-checking is not NPOV breach or "negative trivia" -Agree that "Picture = 1000 words"    ↳ Charts=visuals convey substantive content instantly    ↳ No, 2"x3" thumbnail isn't "tiny": can see extent, trend    ↳ Chart language ("false or misleading claims") is clear

Why is this table necessary? This entire discussion can best be described by the headline: "In a repetition of almost every discussion, WP:SS is being ignored while politically polarized editors face off." -- Scjessey (talk) 20:44, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

First, as already noted, this List condenses eleven (11) desktop-screenfuls of discussion. More important, as the list itself proves, at least five Support editors have mentioned level of "detail" or "summary" or "compact(ness)", so your characterization that WP:SS is "ignored" is simply factually incorrect; and only two editors (both Oppose editors) initiated political issues such as POV. WP:SS states, for example: "Some readers need a lot of details on one or more aspects of the topic (links to full-sized separate subarticles)"; here, clearly, an image with two simple column graphs does not provide "a lot of details", especially at thumbnail size. Accordingly, most editors simply disagree with your personal opinion of WP:SS's application to this situation; they are not ignoring it. —RCraig09 (talk) 21:30, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm just not clear what your intent is here. If you're thinking one side will concede because the arguments are concisely summarized for closer scrutiny, I'm afraid you're wrong. If you're thinking one side can impose their will because the superior strength of their arguments has been "shown", I think you're asking for trouble. But this process could bear improvement and I try to be open to ideas for how to improve it. Show us how this table is worth the additional effort. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:28, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I think the table will be helpful to a closer, but they will still have to read the detailed comments. This discussions does need to be formally closed by an uninvolved editor. Perhaps in a few days, if there are no further !votes.- MrX 🖋 16:02, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

@Mandruss: The intent is to distill essential arguments that are dispersed across eleven (11) desktop-screenfuls, to make reasoned consensus easier to gauge:

Scjessey summarizes his argument (diff) based on his "solid understanding" of WP:SS "from working on many summary style articles"; to your credit, at least you (@Mandruss) have honestly admitted (diff) that the summary-vs.-detail issue is one of where to draw the line. WP:SS is definitely applicable, but as I mentioned two paragraphs above (21:30, 10 Nov), five Support editors specifically contradict your and Scjessey's conclusion about summary-vs.-detail. Meanwhile, Opposers PackMecEng and Jack Upland offer non-policy-based arguments only brief opinions without specific policy citations, while Opposers Markbassett and MayHisShadowFallUponYou assert obviously-misplaced POV arguments against fact-finders or obviously-incorrect assertions re the wp:weight of Veracity itself.

The weight of reasoned consensus over ~six days and >7500 words outside this Discussion summary is clear. Absent new substantive arguments, it's time to re-introduce the charts into this article. Or do you think we need an outside admin to formally decide? —RCraig09 (talk) 16:24, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

In an ideal world we would have an uninvolved closer for every discussion of any significance. Since that isn't practical, we often just count !votes as a matter of expedience, but rarely when the margin is this small and the issue so strongly contested. So, unless you're prepared to omit the content as a "no consensus" situation – or the margin increases considerably – we'll need an uninvolved close – as MrX said above. It doesn't have to be an admin, just an experienced and competent editor, as per the information near the top of WP:ANRFC. And there would probably be a long wait due to the backlog; the last one was over five weeks from request to closure. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:43, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

@RCraig09: I think dismissing the comments of several editors as "non policy-based arguments" is pretty shabby and incorrect. I may not personally believe in their rationale, but their arguments do appear to be based on their own interpretations of actual policy, just as my argument is based on my interpretation of WP:SS. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:00, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

A fair point. I've changed my description above. —RCraig09 (talk) 18:17, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

To be clear, I like these graphs and I certainly think they have value in the veracity article. I'm just opposed to putting them in this article because it would lead to an inconsistent application of WP:SS, and perhaps even open the door for bringing back other detailed material we've successfully excised in a quest to limit the article's footprint. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:00, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Consistency? The second paragraph of that section of the article has long contained outdated detail and other agonizingly microscopic detail. —RCraig09 (talk) 18:17, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

That is a different conversation worth having (and indeed I mention this at the beginning of #False statements below), but the focus of this discussion is about the graphs. We cannot allow whataboutism to be the deciding factor. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:39, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Let somebody else assess the consensus and decide. As someone who has closed a few long and complicated RfCs like this, I can say that charts like the above can be helpful, but not when they are made by a person heavily involved in the RfC. If I were closing this I would likely ignore the above chart completely and just make my own in Excel if I thought it was necessary to get a clearer view of the consensus. ~Awilley (talk) 17:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Someone: please begin the process for formally requesting an external admin/reviewer to decide. —RCraig09 (talk) 18:17, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

The discussion was opened a mere six days ago, although it feels like three weeks. MrX said Perhaps in a few days, if there are no further !votes. and I'm fine with that. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:22, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Mandruss It’s been a while since you said posted for close, shouldn’t a closer have been here by now? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:46, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

It's still in the request list, so it hasn't been forgotten. FWIW, it's number two in the "other types of requests" section and there is no requirement to take requests in sequence. Unless one side cares to concede, there's nothing to do but wait. In my opinion Wikipedia needs to find a way to incentivize uninvolved closures as it's a very difficult, largely thankless (more stress than reward), and very important function. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:57, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

False statements

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

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

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

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

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

My comments have been about the inherent illogic of that argument.[2] As for actual user behavior:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Red herrings

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

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

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

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

Why are we talking about the lead? ―Mandruss ☎ 15:26, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

@Skyring: By your rationale, we should eliminate all the daughter articles we created in support of WP:SS and shove the whole lot into this article. I don't disagree that the graphs are useful, but I regard them as finer detail best left to the appropriate daughter article. By the way, "The Rouge Clupeidae" will be my new band name. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Let me be the first to point out that you're mixing languages. That's Clupeidae rubicundus. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:40, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

But it doesn't sound anywhere near as good, and it least French evolved from vulgar Latin. I still chuckle whenever I think of WP:ROUGE. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:45, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Pete makes a good point about due weight as a determining factor for inclusion in the lead of an article:

"but I suggest that if material in the body warrants its own specialised article, as this topic does here, then the topic is worthy of inclusion in the lede; it's not something that is seen as minor."

When one reads a large mother article of significance, like this one, it will have many sections, a number of which are short summaries of SPINOFF sub-articles. One could get the mistaken impression (gained from visually comparing the size of sections) that many of those short summaries are of less due weight than the longer sections which do not link to a sub-article. That is often the exact opposite of reality. Those "longer sections which do not link to a sub-article" have so little due weight that they don't deserve a sub-article, and thus only short mention in the lead.

To properly gauge due weight, one should look at the sub-article, and then realize that it often has much more due weight than a section not leading to a sub-article. It was so weighty that we could not give it full coverage in the mother article. So keep that in mind when determining what and how much should be mentioned in the lead. Give those sub-articles their due weight in the lead of the mother article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:12, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Why are we talking about the lead? ―Mandruss ☎ 18:40, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

"By your rationale, we should eliminate all the daughter articles we created in support of WP:SS and shove the whole lot into this article." No, Scjessey, That's not the case. See, there's a reason I used the phrase red herrings above.

My point is that we should stick to policy, unless there is a compelling reason to WP:IAR. If you want to talk about blind people as a reason to not have a graph in this article, that has already been discussed at a higher level and the Manual of Style tells us what to do. --Pete (talk) 20:14, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I was trying to make a point about how cutting text in favor of the graphs would be foolish, but my rationale for excluding the graphs remains that they represent too much detail for a summary style article. Bear in mind that this is my view despite my personal distaste for the odious subject of the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:18, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not advocating cutting text at all, unless it's the sort of data-dense material that is best put into graphical form. I think with Don Trump, having a graphical representation of the volume of falsehoods over time presents information that is readily accessible without having to resort to "pre-digested" statements, or looking deeper into the source. It's available at a glance, because that is the way we tend to assimilate information. --Pete (talk) 20:56, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• WEIGHT? Think this said that backwards. WEIGHT is *against* the chart being present at all, there factually is not prominence to a series of weekly counts for Trump. A few noted instances and midterm election period, yes. Abstract counts for every week, no. A weekly numbers proportion of coverage or a chart of such has not shown much WEIGHT. On a related note...weekly number x and y and z also are not in the article so the chart just isn’t a summary of something here. Those are just the facts... Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:57, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Sources

"The third president to be impeached" in the lead

The discussion of impeachment was originally added to the fifth paragraph of the lead when we were only dealing with calls for impeachment. Now Trump has been impeached, the 3rd president in US history. It's 15 times more common to be president of the U.S. than to be one of the three presidents since 1789 who were impeached. Hence, this issue is now vastly more significant than when it was originally added to the fifth paragraph of the lead. It is clear that this now merits a more prominent mention in the lead, preferably in the first paragraph. For instance, his less notable activity as a television personality is mentioned in the first paragraph. His impeachment is, in addition to being much rarer than being president, an essential feature of his presidency, and something his entire presidency has revolved around, with all the investigations and talk of impeachment that started the moment he took office, something he himself has engaged with constantly. We could change the first paragraph to: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current president of the United States. Before entering politics, he was a businessman and television personality. In 2019 he became the third president to be impeached.. --Tataral (talk) 05:57, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Nah, not yet. See how it goes with the senate. PackMecEng (talk) 06:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

They don't have a say in whether he gets impeached. He's now impeached, like only three others. --Tataral (talk) 06:12, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Yup and it is in the lead. I do not agree that it needs to be the third sentence in the lead just yet. PackMecEng (talk) 06:14, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Obviously belongs in the lead. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 06:23, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree it belongs in the lead.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:54, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Andrew Johnson's impeachment is mentioned in the fifth sentence of the lead. Bill Clinton's impeachment is also mentioned in the fifth sentence of the lead. Useful precedents to consider. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:01, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

You probably meant Andrew Johnson. And the Watergate scandal is mentioned in the first paragraph of Richard Nixon's article too, with most RS viewing the Watergate scandal as less serious than all the Trump–Russia/Ukraine scandals. --Tataral (talk) 08:24, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I have corrected "Jackson" to "Johnson". Sorry for the typo. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:38, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

The precedent is that Long afterwards it gets ‘fifth line and nothing else’ - Lead mentions the outcome and not the preceding steps. But I doubt people are ready to drop the lead para on Mueller and lead para on inquiry. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

This has to be in the lead, as it is one of the most significant things in this article. I support it. Minecrafter0271 (talk) 02:26, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion

The opening should read: "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current president of the United States, and the third president to be impeached."

I believe this is an accurate description of his status as POTUS. Ollie Garkey (talk) 06:33, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I would support that wording as well. --Tataral (talk) 07:24, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

No, it doesn't belong in the first sentence. The opening line of Clinton's article doesn't say he was the second to be impeached.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:31, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

However, Andrew Johnson's article mentions his impeachment in the first paragraph. Trump's impeachment is more central to his legacy than Clinton's impeachment for a trivial issue which centered on him having extramarital relations (really, who cares?). Clinton was widely known for a range of other things, his whole presidency didn't revolve around Russia investigations, foreign interference and his impeachment (unlike Trump's impeachment for a much more serious issue, that has been a much more dominating feature of his presidency). Nobody accused Clinton of soliciting foreign interference of the main adversary of the U.S. in American democracy, of being a threat to democracy or abusing power. --Tataral (talk) 07:38, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Andrew Johnson's article mentions it in the first paragraph, not the first sentence. It's way too early to decide what Trump's legacy is and what has dominated his presidency (which looks set to continue for another four years). Clinton was impeached for "obstruction of justice". That is not trivial. However, he was acquitted. The issues of Whitewater, Monica Lewinsky etc did dominant his Presidency. People were accusing Clinton of everything, including mass murder.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:04, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

My proposal above was to mention it in the first paragraph, but not the first sentence. I'm fine with either alternative. It is not way too early to assess how the world views Donald Trump and his presidency. It has been extensively commented on for years, since 2016 (even the impeachment talk started in 2016). Clinton's presidency, as covered by international media, didn't revolve around impeachment and him being a grave threat to democracy; his impeachment was covered by international media as a curious event that resulted from a right-wing witch-hunt and over a trivial issue, late in his otherwise successful presidency. He was not accused of soliciting the interference of foreign countries against his own country. The Watergate scandal is mentioned in Richard Nixon's first paragraph too; many RS have commented on the fact that Trump's Russia and Ukraine scandals are far more serious than the Watergate scandal; it's telling that we have so many articles covering these related scandals that ultimately resulted in his impeachment, so it deserves a mention in the first paragraph (Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, Links between Trump associates and Russian officials, Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (January–June 2018), Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (July–December 2018), Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump, Impeachment of Donald Trump, Trump–Ukraine scandal etc.). --Tataral (talk) 08:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

No, you said you supported the wording above. You probably should be impeached yourself. It is not relevant what was not said about Clinton. Whether an impeachment is a witch-hunt or a crucifixion is not relevant here. Impeachment is a major event, but I don't see that Clinton is very different from Trump. I don't need a lecture from you about how the international media covered Clinton.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:38, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Untrue. I said I support that wording "as well" (as my own proposal above which included it in the third sentence). Both alternatives are fine with me. --Tataral (talk) 09:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I'll support one brief sentence at the end of the first para due to the historic nature. He is the third U.S. president in history to have been impeached. That leaves a lot unsaid, and that's fine and quite appropriate for the first para; more detail in the last para of the lead, where it is now. I would struggle to find a sensible place for new content anywhere else above the last para. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:34, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I had in mind too: a very short mention in the first paragraph that briefly summarises/introduces the topic (the end of the first paragraph is fine with me), and more detail on the investigations and inquiries that ultimately led to his impeachment at the end of the lead section. --Tataral (talk) 09:33, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

A consensus in something more structured than this would be required to modify #Current consensus item 17. But we can discuss a bit more before taking the articles of edit proposal to the full House for a !vote. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:40, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I would support a brief sentence in the first paragraph. I also think the impeachment should comprise the entire last paragraph of the lead (an edit I made yesterday, but was reverted.) The impeachment should not be lumped in with the Mueller investigation. - MrX 🖋 19:49, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

• Doesn’t belong in the first line, for now as the summary of the impeachment para is best. The alternative of Clinton precedent seems like it needs to *note* that precedent is ‘line 5 and nothing else’. No Mueller para and no inquiry para. Maybe further events and enough time has passed that we can focus on the endpoint and skip the steps, but my feeling is that we’re not there yet. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:31, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Legal scholars differ on whether Trump has actually been impeached. Certainly, the House has approved articles of impeachment, but that is analogous to a prosecutor writing charges in a report. Until the accused is presented with those charges in court, the accused is not yet charged with a crime. Being charged with a crime happens at the same instant that the accused party's opportunity to defend himself commences, not when the prosecutor or grand jury write a report. Trump will certainly be impeached if the articles are delivered to the senate, but he is arguably not impeached at the moment. Given that impeachment is analogous to being charged with a crime, if this were a criminal case, Trump would not be charged at this point. He is probably not impeached at this point. The article should say the House has approved articles of impeachment and not that the president has been impeached.184.14.211.30 (talk) 19:23, January 8, 2020‎ (UTC)

Near as I can find, one legal scholar has offered this opinion and others have disagreed. That's not enough to suggest he isn't what all reliable sources say he is -- impeached. O3000 (talk) 20:39, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

USER: 184.14.211.30, that one scholar is wrong and all others have told him so. And you are wrong on many accounts. The House has approved articles of impeachment, but that is NOT analogous to a prosecutor writing charges in a report. It is like a Grand Jury where one is charged with a crime, filed charges. Impeachment means Trump has been charged. The Constitution says ONLY the House impeaches and ONLY the Senate holds trial. Trump has been impeached, the Constitution says nothing about sending the Articles to the Senate to make the POUTS impeached. Given that impeachment is analogous to being charged with a crime, if this were a criminal case, Trump would be charged at this point, awaiting trial. He is impeached at this point. The article should say the House has impeached, because he was. And you said, "Until the accused is presented with those charges in court, the accused is not yet charged with a crime". This is wrong too. You can get charged at any time, and you go to court to fight the charges. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:4040:129E:9200:6586:FE8:F8C8:4E92 (talk) 20:13, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Missing info

An important piece of information is missing from the sentence in the lead about Trump's impeachment that makes it different from the two previous cases: the votes to impeach were entirely partisan/from one party, while the votes against were bipartisan (two Democrats voted against, with one abstaining/present). AppliedCharisma (talk) 19:01, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of this point was already in progress below when you posted this. Let's keep all of that in one place, please. I see you've already commented there. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

You forgot amash, and the only reason that happened is that disappointingly every single republican is corrupt. Who voted for what doesn't belong in the lead at all,anyway.  Nixinova   T   C   01:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

The better phrasing would be “On almost entirely partisan lines”. It would be misportrayal to call this bipartisan, the partisan nature is what should be mentioned more. The partisan nature has WEIGHT as the first and most common thing said about the vote. The few who didn’t vote with their party are mentioned, but as side points. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:43, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Almost every single vote is along partisan lines now, so the fact that the impeachment is the same is unremarkable. No mention of how the vote went is necessary or significant for this article. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Scjessey, It's very much remarkable considering past impeachments. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 14:18, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

@May His Shadow Fall Upon You: Let me give you some fuller context to explain my view, if you'll allow me to indulge myself with something that might sound a little FORUMy. Past impeachments have happened when bipartisanship was the norm and there was less vote whipping. "Crossing the aisle" wasn't just common, it was considered statesmanlike. But since 9/11 and the horrible Patriot Act, the nation has become increasingly polarized and that has been reflected in more and more partisanship in government. Each new administration has seen the intensity of partisanship increase, with Mitch McConnell's obstruction of Barack Obama being the most dramatic example. Now we have reached a point where Republican lawmakers are united in defending the indefensible. Acts by a POTUS that previously would've shocked lawmakers of any political persuasion are now defended as perfectly normal. In short, it has become completely normal for votes to fall along party lines, and the impeachment of Trump is just another in a long line of such votes. Such votes are remarkable when taken in the historical context of impeachments, but not at all remarkable when taken in the contemporary context of the way business is done in Congress today. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:54, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Scjessey, I can respect your opinion but this is exactly the kind of editorializing that we're supposed to avoid. We should not omit (or include) information because it does not represent an editor's POV. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 19:29, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

It's not editorializing if it's on a talk page. Reliable sources do not think the "partisan vote" for impeachment is remarkable, and I'm giving you my reasons why I agree with that. The decision about exclusion or inclusion should be based on reliable sources, and on consensus. I would never dream of trying to impose my personal view upon a Wikipedia article. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:16, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I vote for sticking to what reliable sources think, and skipping the part about why you agree with that. Your instinct about FORUM was spot on (you have good instincts) and you should have listened to that instinct in my opinion. (I'll resist the urge to go all meta about our very selective and inconsistent enforcement of NOTFORUM.) ―Mandruss ☎ 01:17, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

You're right. I'll shut up now. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:32, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

He was impeached. Whether a minority consisting of his own (far-right & white nationalist) party supported his impeachment doesn't matter. --Tataral (talk) 14:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Impeachment in the first paragraph proposal A

Discussion here has largely died down (even allowing for the holidays) and this is ready for one or more specific proposals. Any such addition will modify #Current consensus item 17. This is not about the treatment of impeachment later in the lead, which is under discussion elsewhere on this page. This proposal is:

Add at the end of the first paragraph: He is the third U.S. president in history to have been impeached.

• Support as proposer, per discussion above. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:49, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
• Notification of participants. @Tataral, PackMecEng, Snooganssnoogans, Jack Upland, Cullen328, Markbassett, Ollie Garkey, MrX, AppliedCharisma, Nixinova, Scjessey, and May His Shadow Fall Upon You: ―Mandruss ☎ 04:02, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose as previously discussed.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:22, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

  @Jack Upland: As I read it, your opposition was to a mention in the first sentence, which is not this proposal. By all means oppose this too, but it's not "as previously discussed". ―Mandruss ☎ 04:31, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

  Still oppose.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:47, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support mentioning Trump's impeachment in the first paragraph but not in the first sentence. We should treat his impeachment as we do in Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, each of which mentions their impeachments in the fifth sentence of the lead paragraph. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:43, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
• Strong Support of the concept, but with a couple of changes - the impeachment of Donald Trump is the second most significant event in Trump's life after actually winning the presidency, and it has received an enormous amount of media coverage - commensurate with its significance. To not have it in the very first paragraph of his biography would be just plain weird. This is as close to a slam dunk as you're every likely to get in Wikipedia, and opposition to this could only be regarded as baffling. However, I think it should be the second sentence of the paragraph, not the third, and I think "in history" is redundant. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:16, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
• Mention it in the lede but not the first sentence - we should match what we do for Bill Clinton and Andrew Johnson. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 20:37, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

  @May His Shadow Fall Upon You: Given your references to Clinton and Johnson, we'll take your !vote as "Mention it in the first paragraph but not the first sentence". First paragraph is not lead. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:04, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support per reasons discussed above. Both the above proposal and the modified proposal by Scjessey are equally acceptable to me; I have no strong preference. --Tataral (talk) 23:52, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose As previously discussed. It already is in the lead, a second placement is inappropriate. I would support reducing it to one line after the concluding Verdict, but until then think the position as a closing para for the ongoing events is the best approach. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:45, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
• Remove altogether. The impeachment doesn't take effect until the articles have been referred to the Senate, so President Trump is not currently impeached. What it currently says in the intro is misleading and a violation of WP:BLP. AppliedCharisma (talk) 15:17, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

• That is not reflective of the sourcing. By the vast majority of reliable sources, this is the 3rd president to be impeached. ValarianB (talk) 19:36, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
• Sort of agree, but more in the sense of how to word it -- it seems incorrect to say the impeachment happened in December when the date impeachment vote 2 is taken and the articles actually signed are in January 2020. Do we say impeached in December thru January ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:25, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose – Keep this where it is, at the end of the lead section: it is the latest thing that happened in Trump's life, so chronologically consistent with the lead's biographical approach. — JFG ^talk 08:48, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support First paragraph, as following Johnson and Clinton. ValarianB (talk) 19:36, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support For consistency with the articles of the only other two presidents to be impeached—Clinton and Johnson. Per WP:LEAD, the first paragraph "should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it." Obviously Trump's impeachment establishes the context for his life far more so than being a television personality. - MrX 🖋 12:12, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support proposal per nom and MOS:LEADPARAGRAPH. I'd prefer to see the "third" aspect mentioned there rather than later in the intro. Sdkb (talk) 07:37, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - I now agree that "in history" is superfluous. It seems highly unlikely editors are particularly attached to those two words, and unlikely it will affect any existing !votes, so I have stricken the words from the proposed text. If the proposal passed including the two words, another discussion and consensus would be required to remove them. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:40, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: I think this discussion is problematic. It would be better to wait and see. If Trump is convicted, he will be removed from the presidency. That certainly belongs in the first paragraph — in fact, the first sentence. However, if he is acquitted, the issue is far less important. It is hard at this point to judge the importance of impeachment in the context of Trump's life, particularly as the verdict hasn't come in. The comparison with Clinton and Johnson is inapposite. Both of their articles have solid opening paragraphs, and impeachment is mentioned later. Trump currently only has two sentences in his opening paragraph. As far as I can see, the proposed text is:Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current president of the United States. Before entering politics, he was a businessman and television personality. He is the third U.S. president to have been impeached. This is really repetitive and jumbled. It isn't like Clinton and Johnson, so it isn't consistent at all.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:17, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

  He will be acquitted, and the impeachment will still be historic. That's objective, provable, and indisputable fact, and in my view enough to include one sentence in the first paragraph. (And this argument does not rest on Clinton's and Johnson's first paragraphs, per my general opposition to whataboutism. It stands independent from other Wikipedia content.) Whether the issue is far less important, on the other hand, is a subjective matter of political perspective. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

  What do you mean "historic"? We're back to the baseball card. He's the 45th president and the third to be impeached, the oldest first-term president, the first with no government experience, the first to be disendorsed by his own party prior to election, and the first to set foot in North Korea. Is impeachment of presidents rare? Two out of the last four presidents have been impeached. Nixon would have been impeached if he hadn't resigned. So three presidents have faced impeachment in my lifetime. Historic? Hmmm... maybe not. If he is actually convicted, it will obviously be far more important because it will terminate his presidency. We will have to say that he was the president from 2017 until he was impeached and removed in 2020. That has to be in the first sentence. If he is acquitted, it will probably not adversely affect his presidency, as Clinton wasn't adversely affected. Historic? It's hard to know how Trump will be remembered. Perhaps for his TV work.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support The articles for Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton all have mention of impeachment (or resignation, in the case of Nixon) in the first paragraph. John Link (talk) 05:56, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Should the second sentence of the last paragraph of the lead be changed?

Should the second sentence of the last paragraph of the lead be changed from:

The inquiry reported that he withheld military aid and a White House invitation in order to influence Ukraine to publicly announce investigations into his political rivals.

to:

The inquiry reported that he withheld military aid and a White House invitation in order to influence Ukraine to publicly announce an investigation into a political opponent. 

- MrX 🖋 13:05, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Previous discussions:

• Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 108#Impeachment inquiry report - and a look ahead for the lede
• Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 109#One or several political opponents?

Original edit: [3] - MrX 🖋 13:14, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Links were corrected — JFG talk 18:20, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Link Correction: The first link should be to archive. Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_108#Impeachment_inquiry_report_-_and_a_look_ahead_for_the_lede The second link should be to current Talk. Talk:Donald Trump#One_or_several_political_opponents?. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

---

• MrX: Maybe it would be better to hold off on this until the impeachment wording proposals have been archived or one of them has been adopted (in which case this RfC will be moot)? There hasn't been much interest but that may be due to the holiday season. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: I considered that, but the wording proposals discussion is not really progressing and this minor wording dispute seems to be a hot topic. We just need to get a few more editor opinions to tip the scales one way or the other. 14:23, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Survey

• SINGULAR - as said before, Joe Biden is just one rival and WP should not give bad info of saying plural rivals. The impeachment articles say “A political opponent,” singular, and the earlier discussion was Starship.paint proposing “one of Trump’s political rivals” so it just looks like a typo happened, just needs a fix. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:27, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
• No - per my comments and the 16 sources at Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 109#One or several political opponents?. As is evident from both the current and proposed text, this is about the impeachment inquiry, not the impeachment articles. Trump pursued investigations on two vectors: Joe Biden/Hunter Biden, and the DNC (and by extension Hillary Clinton) via the CrowdStrike conspiracy theory.- MrX 🖋 21:58, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
• No The text refers to the bipartisan Congressional investigation, not the wording of the Impeachment resolution. That reference was decided in the extensive discussions of this brief paragraph and it is appropriate. It gives a succinct but broad factual description of the conclusions of the investigation rather than a reference to the crafted legal language of the impeachment document. SPECIFICO talk 23:54, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
• Remove the sentence - I don't actually see the need for this sentence. It is essentially an elaboration on the previous sentence. Given that this is the lead, and only a brief summary is necessary, why not leave these specifics to the body of the article? -- Scjessey (talk) 16:02, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Acceptable to me - events have moved on so can cut what was an intermediate conclusion. Not sure people are ready, but think it will eventually get cut anyway as more arrives. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:25, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Would you please stick to the question asked in the RfC? We have already reached a consensus on this sentence and there is an ongoing straw poll about the impeachment content in the lead. Right now, we're trying to resolve simple dispute involving two words. Do you have a view on that specific dispute? - MrX 🖋 16:29, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, my view is this a Request for Comment, not an A or B choice. In RfCs, additional proposals are encouraged, not discarded. If you insist on pinning me down to the binary choice, I lean toward the singular "rival" as a matter of fact. Nevertheless, I would prefer to eliminate the sentence completely as it is superfluous. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:13, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

RfC is a simply worded question, exactly what MrX has posted here. I'm not sure what you're referring to about free range comments, but that is 1) the way things often get derailed, and 2) kind of ridiculous when the question is simply to stop an edit war by confirming that the lead "rivals" should conform to the amply referenced article text "rivals". Yes, we'll get a certain number of wrong answers from folks who don't bother to read the article, but I know you are not in that category. Please give it a think or two. SPECIFICO talk 18:34, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about "free range comments". MrX insisted on a binary choice, but I pointed out that WP:RFC says there's nothing wrong with additional proposals, such as those I have suggested. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:31, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Would it be more accurate to say "cage free comments"? - MrX 🖋 13:52, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• Yes It was just Biden, singular.HAL333 21:49, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
• Yes. Opponent singular is a more accurate statement. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:38, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, singular – As I wrote in my initial edit summary:[4] If we're not gonna name Biden (per talk page opposition), at least let's not mislead readers into thinking Trump requested investigations of several "political rivals": there's just one. Also, "opponent" is more neutral language and a traditional description of contenders in presidential races. I stand by this rationale. Trump is not getting impeached for mentioning the Clinton email server, but for asking Ukraine to investigate the Bidens. The official articles of impeachment say exactly that, page 3, lines 20-21: A political opponent, former Vice President Joseph R. Biden. Jr. — JFG ^talk 05:51, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
• Remove the sentence - Not that I care much whether this particular sentence is included or not, but since someone decided to bring it up, the inclusion of the sentence is an excessive amount of detail that's better served in Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump. The lead section doesn't need to mention every nook and cranny about the impeachment. I think removing this particular sentence will reinforce the unspoken rule that lead sections should only describe the subject in a nutshell—not include large amounts of very small details. In other words, don't bury the lead.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 10:01, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, singular. The previous sentence referred to the interference in the 2020 U.S. presidential elections. The target - based on media reports - was Biden. There were no other identified rivals this election cycle tied to the Ukraine incident. Darwin Naz (talk) 23:59, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
• Singular - It was Biden. Bacondrum (talk) 00:36, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
• Saying that Trump demanded Ukraine investigate a political rival (singular) is just as wrong as saying that he demanded they investigate political rivals (plural)–plenty of sources for either version–which is why I think this RfC shouldn't have been started in the first place. Since we're (well, JFG is, actually) quoting the impeachment articles, the official articles of impeachment also say (page 3, lines 22-25) that he corruptly solicited the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations into ... (B) a discredited theory promoted by Russia that Ukraine-rather than Russia-interfered in the 2016 United States Presidential election which is why I am opposed to the current wording of the sentence, singular or plural. As USA Today put it: The Democratic-led House approved 230-197 the first article of impeachment accusing Trump of abusing his power by asking Ukrainian officials to announce investigations that would benefit his reelection. We should finish what we started with the impeachment wording proposals or start a new RfC along those lines. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:30, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
• YES- If there are multiple "rivals", can anyone name just one? (Besides Biden) or better yet just remove the sentence since the lead is bloated enough as it is. Rusf10 (talk) 20:43, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
• Yes Singular, it was just one opponent Dartslilly (talk) 21:29, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
• Remove the sentence since the lead is bloated enough as it is. and YES singular if it stays in all current discussion is about Joe Biden RonaldDuncan (talk) 16:04, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
• No; use plural, as he also asked for investigations into the Crowdstrike conspiracy (and Clinton/DNC by extension), and also tried to somehow damage Yovanovich (per newly released evidence). Even if there was only one "target" (seems there were at least two), there was still collateral damage. --WMSR (talk) 00:14, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
• No. Trump demanded that Ukraine investigate a current potential rival and a former one by trying to make Ukraine claim falsely that they — not Russia — interfered in the 2016 election to help boost Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. ... The Russian Embassy in Washington declined to address whether Putin told Trump that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 campaign, saying only that information about the two leaders’ conversations is available on the Kremlin’s website. Quotes from WaPo. Other sources: Politico, NYT, NBC. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:29, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
• Delete, alternatively Yes Biden hasn't yet competed against Trump, so still only a hypothetical rival. But given his intent to challenge for the presidency, he loosely counts as one opponent, not multiple. Clinton was a rival, but not even a hopeful when this went down. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:04, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
• Singular Unaware of any political opponents other than Joe Biden who are involved. Adoring nanny (talk) 00:54, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
• No per Mr. X and others. Wanted investigations into multiple people.Casprings (talk) 02:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
• Delete, alternatively Yes - Now that it is going to the senate the original inquiry is too much depth for the lead. But if we are going to include it, it should be singular to reflect the actual charges the inquiry produced. PackMecEng (talk) 00:50, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
• Directly state Biden - one single name isn't enough to bring too much detail to a lead, and explicitly stating "political rival/opponent" creates a negative connotation that could go against WP:NPOV. People know that Joe Biden is running against Trump and will be able to decide on their own whether the event was tied to his role as a political opponent.Jancarcu (talk) 19:57, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

@Markbassett: - As you know, I am pleased to praise your contributions when they are grounded thoughtful consideration of the reliable sources. But your repeated insistence (in this and previous threads) on this dreary but significant detail of wording denies both the sources and the long-agreed context of this little sentence. The text in dispute refers to the bipartisan Congressional investigation, NOT the Impeachment document. Have you read about the inquiry report and associated sources? As many editors have demonstrated and agreed and cited, the primary and secondary sources relating to that investigation -- dozens of which are available via links on this website -- conclusively demonstrate a settled factual narrative. It involves not just the Bidens, but also the Crowdstrike/Democratic National Committee conspiracy theories and --yes -- the Clintons.
Markbassett, after all the grief and edit-warring and hard work MrX has done researching a reading list for holdouts on the "only the Bidens" bit, I frankly don't think it's OK for any editor here to claim this is all due to a typo. I cannot imagine editors going to the trouble of all this research and repetitive discussions with a few holdouts over an undiscovered typographical error. Please review the documents and reconsider your view on the RfC question. Cheers. SPECIFICO talk 23:54, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

User:SPECIFICO Don’t be silly - the 11 Dec thread had Starship proposing “one of” Trump’s rivals, singular; the inquiry reports a single Joe Biden; the later impeachment articles say “a political opponent” singular; the article text this is summarizing has a single opponent ”to investigate Democratic Presidential candidate Joe Biden and his son Hunter” .... Anything other than singular is factually and by WEIGHT incorrect, but “one of” is not present, so it just looks like a typo on entry. Are you thinking there’s any explanation other than typo for why the Starship proposal did not get entered as discussed circa 11 Dec  ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:22, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

@Markbassett: cc: @SusanLesch and HAL333: This is the lead we're talking about. The sentence referes to the findings of the House Intelligence Committee investigation, not the articles of impeachment. This lead sentence is summarizing the following sentence from the article text: The inquiry reported that he withheld military aid and a White House invitation in order to influence Ukraine to publicly announce investigations into his political rivals. The final word is plural, "rivals." Are you suggesting the lead summarize the word "rivals" with the word "rival"? SPECIFICO talk 21:36, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Surely, that's fine. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:31, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

That is a singular approach to language. Thanks for your reply. SPECIFICO talk 23:54, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: cc: @SusanLesch and HAL333: Yes, use the singular “rival”, or “opponent”. There is only one opponent Joe Biden, and as said before factually and by WEIGHT singular is correct. I don’t know where in the inquiry report you are looking, but I find singular, singular, singular so singular is what is strongly supported:

• Preface of it Pg 8 says “solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, to benefit his re-election.” And “including one into President Trump’s domestic political opponent.” (note the singular “opponent”).
• Then pg 9 “to harm the election prospects of a political rival,” (note the singular “rival”).
• Then page 10, quoting President Trump, “the Bidens”. (Hunter is not a political opponent, but you can say plural about Bidens)
• Then page 12 the Executive Summary para 1 says “investigations into a political rival that he apparently feared the most, former Vice President Joe Biden,” and later pg 12 again “Joe Biden”(note the singular “a” and “Joe”)
• Then Section I page 13 “Joe Biden”, page 14 “Vice President Biden’s role”, “Vice President Biden”, etcetera etcetera
• Page 21 “the political benefit Trump would derive from their announcement and the cloud they might put over a political opponent”. (note the singular “opponent”)

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

References

Please do not your enthusiasm to prematurely dive into an RfC prevent you from seeing the alternative I put forward in the earlier discussion thread:

The inquiry reported that he withheld military aid and a White House invitation in order to influence Ukraine to publicly announce investigations into his political opposition.

-- Scjessey (talk) 14:16, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Scjessey, that word "opposition" just begs the question. We need to write the most explicit text possible, to reflect clear sources. An encyclopedia should not be an ink-blot test. SPECIFICO talk 14:22, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Nonsense. This is just a summary for the lead. It is fully explained in the body of the text, and that is perfectly sufficient. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:25, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Same problem. I can't tell why you're calling it sufficient nonsense. Yes, the article text does state "rivals" in the plural. But Trump's repeated asks regarding the Crowdstrike/DNC/Clinton conspiracy theories are not "fully explained" in this article. Never mind. We have an RfC. SPECIFICO talk 15:33, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I’m having a bit of a difficult time parsing Mark’s comment. i.e., “anything other than singular”. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 10:31, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Symmachus Auxiliarus There are several singular phrasings - “one of” his rivals, “a political opponent”, “Joe Biden”, “a rival” ... so any phrasing about political rival/opponent other than something singular just looks like a typo. If there is some explanation other than typo for not not using the phrase discussed circa 11 Dec but instead calling Joe Biden “political rivals” (plural) ... I’m not seeing it. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:07, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

At least 16 highly reliable sources disagree with you. - MrX 🖋 12:04, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Pfft. As hundreds of thousands and *millions* of cites agree with me on singular "Joe Biden", "a political rival" or "one of his political opponents", including what seems all the official and prominent items, plus the simple fact is Joe Biden is not multiple opponents ... I’m inclined to not be impressed that someone was able to find 16 (?) odd pluralisms. I’m notably *not* seeing cites name more than one political rival or give other info supporting/explaining a plural ‘rivals’. There actually are a lot more than just 16 such, but regardless - factually and by WEIGHT, singular is what should be used. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 11:34, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Markbassett, anyone who ever bothers to look at your googlefest links will see that they are about everything from the Senator Biden's view on the Clinton impeachment to the Bide-a-Wee home for cat rescue. Whoever volunteers to close this RfC is going to understand that we're talking about lead text to represent the article text in the investigations section -- that is plural -- and that the sentence in question refers to the findings of the Intelligence Committee investigation, not the impeachment document. And so, your remarks and all the others that merely state personal opinions about reflecting your general sense of the matter or that ignore relevant sourced narratives on the identified topic of this sentence will be disregarded. So for your sake, I hope you and the other singular folks will please state some view that supports your preference while also addressing the matter that's on the table here. Cheers. SPECIFICO talk 17:22, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I already gave (7th para in Threaded discussion) 10 places those findings said singular. As to the rest, I think for WEIGHT they’ll look more at the serious items saying singular - basically the inquiry report, even the Republican pre-rebuttal, all major media outlets, many scholars, that singular is continued for the impeachment articles, that singular “one of his political rivals” was the 11 December thread, and maybe even the logic that Joe Biden simply is singular just one ‘political rival’ so it’s the only thing that makes sense. The googlefest with dozens and thousands of serious hits is just to show that MrX declaring 16 is really naming a trivial number to anyone with access to Google. Whether folks want to compare raw googlecounts, including cats on both sides, is up to them - it’s not precise, but large differences are viewable as significant despite any impurities. (There are only so many Cat homes.). Meow Markbassett (talk) 05:38, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Dr. Bornstein copyedit reverted

In this diff a little copyedit was reverted with two baseless rationales given in the edit summary: 1- that Trump Organization attorney Alan Garten and bodyguard Keith Schiller (the same Schiller whom POTUS dispatched to dispatch FBI Director Comey) were not Trump employees, and 2- that according to Bornstein the removal of Trump's original medical records was not forcible. In addition to the cited NBC news reference, there were many contemporaneous accounts of the incident and Bornstein's statements. [5] [6] [7]. Unless I'm missing something here, I'm inclined to reinstate more or less the wording that was reverted. SPECIFICO talk 17:53, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Sources are pretty clear on the matter. WMSR (talk) 18:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

• No, as said in the edit, the sources do not support the prior content. It really should have the word “alleged” as is on BBC coverage of it, along with the Sarah Sanders remarks other version of events, but it also seems trivial enough and low WEIGHT to just delete entirely. Keep it at the less sensationalized wording per WP:BLP guidance to have restraint, or else attribute it as an “Bornstein made the unsupported allegation”. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:51, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Mr. Bassett, the whole thing is Bornstein's view both in the sources and the WP text, in both "your" version and my edit. So that's irrelevant. But the sourcing about employees is clear in all the RS cited. Sanders did not deny it, just a garden variety deflection "we always do the right thing". Please reread all the sources and the comments in this talk thread. Next time maybe voice yourself here before three days no dissent has passed. Perhaps you will have a change of heart or mind. SPECIFICO talk 20:08, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

p.s. (edit conflict) The line had been changed back by SPECIFICO, and I’ve returned it to the User:JFG version. Again, follow cites and skip sensational, or provide attribution and caveats, maybe not those cites alone, or best yet just delete. as trivia. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:15, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I changed it back because, after waiting 3 days for other views, none was put forth. One other editor commented to agree with my explanation for the edit that JFG reverted. Then you reinstated the old text without any response on talk to my question whether anyone disagreed with my assessment of the text and sources. And now you have still not replied to my initial statements, just repeated the fact that you edited the article. Which we already knew. Maybe you could try explaining why you think the source(s) required your revert? That would be more helpful than repeating a challenged claim that they do not. Cheers SPECIFICO talk 23:08, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I put in my disagreement, and then discovered you hadn’t waited to reinstate... so I then returned it to JFG version pending a longer period for discussion, and pinged JFG. Though I think it’s low-weight trivia that could be / should be cut, meanwhile the sources just don’t WP:V support such language. Neither source says force was used or that the Doctor said it was. The saying force was used is a bit WP:EXTREME, and needing better sources, especially when WP:BLP asks us to show restraint. The CBS source really is nothing, it just supports NBC had reported the Doctor said something and that the Doctor neither confirmed nor denied it when CBS tried to get confirmation. The NBC source says the Doctor said many things including “raid”, “rape” and “robbed”, and reversing his positions of prior interviews. So it all looks to be just hyperbole and a bit of a miff, and other sources such as BBC just don’t follow or support the NBC story. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:26, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

American sources are more reliable for American events. In any case, an employee of the White House is likely to defend its occupant. On this topic, Sanders is certainly not a RS (notwithstanding the fact that she is a liar); NBC is. --WMSR (talk) 06:03, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Mr. Bassett, your statement would make any politician's press secretary proud. Deflection, straw man, soundbite. Nobody has suggested this article use many things including “raid”, “rape” and “robbed” in this article. Please follow the weight of RS reporting and the article text, if you still wish to justify your view. SPECIFICO talk 15:34, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I mention those as it shows the language being hyperbolic and emotional when such clearly non-factual words were used, especially when the reporter distanced themself as to the credibility by putting them in quotes. Markbassett (talk) 18:16, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that argument is nonsense. NY Times, NBC, Washington Post, BBC et al do not use scare quotes to disparage the subjects of their reporting. And they certainly do not expand on those reports and report on the reports if they find them insignificant. As one Pulitzer winner said, "Attribution baby, it's what's for dinner." Cheers. SPECIFICO talk 18:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, one might put into the article that 'Bornstein said he was raped', but the proper convey of the cite would be 'he said he felt "raped" '-- that is if you want the story to appear ridiculous and not credible. In any case, the sources do not say forced to turn over the papers so that part is still not passing V. In any case, I think the topic of the thread is done and no 'forced' is not corect. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:40, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

The use of force is not in the one more flamboyant piece, so that wording for the article just does not pass WP:V. Regardless of dissing BBC coverage which discounts the tale, and White House saying other things which NPOV would require included, this cites just one source and does not reflect wider coverage. And even NBC was reporting the interview as if the wording of Bornstein not very credible. Though I still think mostly delete - a lightly covered one interview went oddly accusatory and the unsupported allegations have not been repeated, with Little WEIGHT and no enduring or BLP significance. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Can someone help with a clone of your Current Consensus template thingy?

I tried to make one, but it isn't working right. Talk:Race_and_intelligence#Current_consensus Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:35, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@Peregrine Fisher: It isn't really a template. It is a subpage of this Talk page that has been transcluded here. If you want that page, it is Talk:Donald Trump/Current consensus. Mgasparin (talk) 07:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Hey, I did some work for you. You may need to go through some of the archives to find the discussions which have led to the current article consensus, but the rest should be fine for you. Talk to me if you need more help. Yes, I know that this thread violates WP:NOTFORUM, I just didn't want to move it to my talk page and break the continuity. Mgasparin (talk) 07:14, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much! It seems to be working. If other people start using it and whatnot, and we have questions, I may hit you up. It takes a village! as Trump said! Peregrine Fisher (talk) 10:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Mgasparin (talk) 06:21, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Bragging about committing an impeachable offense?

Where does this article go? QuackGuru (talk) 18:54, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

That would need stronger secondary sourcing. Impeachment appears at two locations in the article, so if you have solid sourcing it would likely be a candidate either for the end of the lead or the end of the article as currently organized. SPECIFICO talk 19:49, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

The article says that "Rep. Val Demings (D-Fla.), one of the House impeachment managers tasked with arguing the case against Trump in the Senate, caught wind of Trump comments and immediately accused President Trump of confessing to and bragging about committing an impeachable offense." Obviously, Trump would disagree that he committed an impeachable offense. For WP to say he bragged about "committing an impeachable offense" would be highly POV. Station1 (talk) 20:04, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I found a stronger source. QuackGuru (talk) 00:19, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

There should be a 48-hour holding period. There’s not enough WEIGHT to include it yet, will have to wait and see if it’s more than a flash du jour. It seems more an item of just hyperbole rephrasing though — that there was refusal was already said and done, and Obstruction was already felt and is in the Articles of Impeachment. Of course the flip side is that most of the evidence against President Trump was volunteered *by* President Trump so it’s not like nothing was given. Anyway, it doesn’t seem like a new event or different position, it seems just someone’s take on today’s phrasing. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:32, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Please, no nonsense. most of the evidence against President Trump was volunteered *by* President Trump SPECIFICO talk 12:03, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Please stop imposing arbitrary editing standards on articles related to Trump and his associates. I agree that we should be diligent in vetting and weighing information, but at least a dozen editors have asked you to stop doing this. If it’s due, it’s due. No comment on the current information, but you’ve done this with most of the Singularly significant parts of his BLP as well. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 14:49, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I strongly support an enforced waiting period on news, and that can be local to this article if necessary. "Historical" perspective is needed, even if only a few days of it, and experience clearly shows that fuzzy lines are completely ineffective for things like this. I think I once advocated a one-month waiting period. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and it matters not that some number of readers want it to be one. It matters even less that many editors really enjoy being amateur journalists, monitoring breaking news and seeking to reflect it in Wikipedia articles in near real time. This is not a fringe position, it's one held by many, many editors, and the fact that we haven't yet prevailed doesn't mean we have to keep quiet about it. Consensus can change, and there would be no way to know when it changed without bringing it up from time to time. Finally, nobody has "imposed" anything here. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:33, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I’m actually not opposed to this idea. I’ve agreed with Mark a few times on this issue, based on the information being presented. My gripe was the imposition of this without consensus. I do think we might be tying our hands behind our own backs potentially with this on occasion (if accepted), and I definitely see a potential to abuse such a position. But in general, I don’t disagree that WP:NOTNEWS needs some clarification, or even an overhaul. The 24 hour news cycle and in particular, Trump’s habit of daily controversy, might necessitate this. As I said, the reason for my posting this comment is Mark’s insistence on this, after being asked to stop and raise it in the appropriate forums instead. Personally, I’d support some nuanced measure if proposed, but this shouldn’t be a standard reply to every edit request when it’s something critical of his presidency. It’s disproportionate. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 17:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

This should not go in the article at all. It is subject to interpretation. Many people assumed he was saying "you don't have the material because I withheld the documents", in other words confirming obstruction of congress. But others have suggested that he meant "the Democrats don't have the evidence, we (the Republican defense) have the evidence." In other words just another continuation of his claim that the impeachment has no basis and no case. Way too unclear a statement to include at all, much less to put the "impeachable offense" interpretation on it. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:05, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

100% agree with what MelanieN has said. If everything of this nature went into the article, it would be not less than 100 times longer. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

It sounds completely relevant to me...he is being impeached..this is his response to the impeachment...for that matter how come he doesn`t have to testify ? 2600:1702:2340:9470:C0CB:B34E:3450:979F (talk) 20:03, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

How are mainstream sources describing this? There will always be "walking back" and "just joking" etc. but the video has been widely disseminated. SPECIFICO talk 20:08, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Stronger sources are available.[8][9] QuackGuru (talk) 20:30, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Opinion statements to be purged

Hello,

It seems to me that the purpose of this repository is to preserve facts and understanding of subjects, not opinions and conjecture. As such, I suggest that the following be purged due to being purely opinion statements or specious claims:

“ Trump has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency. The statements have been documented by fact-checkers, and the media have widely described the phenomenon as unprecedented in American politics. Many of his comments and actions have also been characterized as racially charged or racist.”

Best regards Tallrugger (talk) 03:58, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

All of those statements are well-sourced in the article; they are not statements of opinion, but statements of fact. --WMSR (talk) 04:02, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

That is also a summary of a section, which is a very short summary of this whole article (Veracity of statements by Donald Trump), where many RS document the fact that he lies constantly, far more than any other notable person every documented by fact-checkers. They have even been forced to create a new category of lies because of him, the "Bottomless Pinocchio". -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:55, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Tallrugger The doubts on including of those opinions or partisan pushed POV and this phrasing of it was long debated, see the Current Consensus section #35 and search archives if you want all the other times brought up. You can put in a rfc to reconsider, but unless there’s something new to consider about that it seems a bad idea. And to be clear - the level of scrutiny and adversarial judgement plus counting is part of what’s unprecedented so the first-ever counting being the current record holder not surprising. But these are not “lies” per other consensus #22. p.s. Nobody really “forced” the Washington Post to invent a new cute name category, that seems likely done just to raise the coverage/sales. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 11:17, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

LOL, most of the sources in that section are the New York Times, Washington Post, and Los Angeles Times, all three of whom endorsed his opponent in the 2016 election. I don't know if Politico endorsed Hillary, but they've also made it clear they oppose Trump being President. I guess if we're going to insist on putting their opinions in Wikipedia's voice, then Wikipedia will suffer the same decline in credibility as the mainstream media in the US. That's if Wikipedia has ever been considered credible. AppliedCharisma (talk) 20:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

The endorsements were from the editorial pages. We wouldn't use such here. The cites made were not from editorials. These are highly regarded reliable sources. If you have a problem with these sources, take it to WP:RSN. O3000 (talk) 20:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. It is vital that people understand the "spectrum" of news. Typically, you get "reporting" of the news from beat reporters who just report the unvarnished facts, straightforward journalism where those facts are woven into a cohesive narrative based on the experience of the journalist, and editorial that could come from an editorial staff, a columnist, or a guest writer. ALL of these can appear in the same news outlet, and even if the editorial staff of that outlet "endorse" a particular candidate or party, that does not negate the quality and neutrality of the reporting and journalism from where the bulk of our reliable sourcing will come from, and even opinion can be used if properly attributed and treated with the appropriate weight. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:03, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Not the case here. There doesn’t seem to be such variations. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:19, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Huh? -- Scjessey (talk) 23:24, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 January 2020

In the section "Branding and Licensing" the second sentence reads " In the late 2000s and early 2010s, it expanded this branding and management business to hotel towers to locations around the world, including Chicago, Las Vegas, Washington D.C., Panama City, Toronto, and Vancouver." Suggest that it is updated to take note of the change to the Toronto property. I didn't see an reference to this in the Talk section.

A suggestion would be: " In the late 2000s and early 2010s, it expanded this branding and management business to hotel towers to locations around the world, including Chicago, Las Vegas, Washington D.C., Panama City, Toronto (2012 - 2017), and Vancouver."

A reference could be "The St. Regis Toronto" Wikipedia page. Ian3060 (talk) 23:28, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be anything particularly significant about this property that would warrant special mention. The current text is accurate, notwithstanding later changes. SPECIFICO talk 00:40, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:29, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning The St. Regis Toronto, though. Fun read: In August 2013, close to six years after the start of construction, the building was incomplete. The "TRUMP" sign on the north side of the tower read "TRUM". Alas, nothing special, including the usual lawsuits. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:30, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree that there was too much information in my first suggestion which distracted from the article. My new suggestion it to add the following after Toronto "(2012 - 2017)"

The references could be:

Trump Organization to check out from Toronto hotel, condo tower. The Star June 27, 2017 https://www.thestar.com/business/2017/06/27/trump-organization-to-check-out-from-toronto-hotel-condo-tower.html

InnVest hotels acquires former Trump Tower in Toronto. The Star June 29, 2017 https://www.thestar.com/business/2017/06/29/innvest-hotels-acquires-former-trump-tower-in-toronto.html Ian3060 (talk) 02:59, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

The current sentence shouldn't be changed as that's what happened in the late 2000s and early 2010s. I suppose we could add a sentence about the Panama and Toronto hotels having changed their names since Trump's election. The former Trump Panama Hotel and Ocean Club is the JW Marriott Panama now, after (what else) a legal battle. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:46, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Further discussion on hotel de-branding

In this diff, I see that the de-branding of a couple of hotels was added to the article. This strikes me as UNDUE for a biography of Trump, whose widely and wildly diversified activities have been through many adaptations, rebrandings, and revisionist histories over the years. If we were to include all the properties that fell out of the Trump orbit, we'd need to add a multiple of this new text to an already bloated article. I suggest removing the news of the Marriott takeovers. There may be material for a standalone article, perhaps with the topic of contractions in the Trump business during his presidency. As editors are aware, many of his signature New York projects have removed his gilded nameplates and some of those that have not done so have suffered declining values and a backlog of unsold apartments. SPECIFICO talk 15:33, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not particularly invested in this and don't much care one way or the other. We do have precedent of sorts, though, in the next paragraph: By 2018 only two consumer goods companies continued to license his name. If any more properties "un-brand," that would be a way to handle it. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:59, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I think we should minimize this kind of content. Put it in The Trump Organization but not here. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:03, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Done. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:06, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

"Coordination" footnote in the lead

The lead includes this footnote:

{{efn|name=coordination|"In connection with that analysis, we addressed the factual question whether members of the Trump Campaign 'coordinat[ed]'{{snd}}a term that appears in the appointment order{{snd}}with Russian election interference activities. Like collusion, 'coordination' does not have a settled definition in federal criminal law. We understood coordination to require an agreement{{snd}}tacit or express{{snd}}between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference. That requires more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests. We applied the term coordination in that sense when stating in the report that the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities." [https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf Mueller Report], vol. I, p. 2}}

It quotes a passage from the Mueller Report, and follows that with an external link to the document. This is effectively a backward way of including the following ref:

<ref>{{cite report |publisher=U.S. Department of Justice |date=March 2019 |first=Robert S. III |last=Mueller |title=Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election |volume=I |page=2 |url=https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf |quote=In connection with that analysis, we addressed the factual question whether members of the Trump Campaign 'coordinat[ed]'{{snd}}a term that appears in the appointment order{{snd}}with Russian election interference activities. Like collusion, 'coordination' does not have a settled definition in federal criminal law. We understood coordination to require an agreement{{snd}}tacit or express{{snd}}between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference. That requires more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests. We applied the term coordination in that sense when stating in the report that the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.}}</ref>

I can see no reason for doing this except to get around the article's convention of no refs in the lead. We don't accept refs, but we have accepted a few footnotes, so we have just reformatted one into the other. That doesn't seem constructive. If we really need that quotation in the lead, we should abandon the convention and convert the footnote to a ref. If not, we should remove the footnote. (This would have the option of adding the above ref to the related body content, that option not addressed in this survey.)

What is your preference?

1 - No change.
2 - Convert the footnote to a ref.
3 - Remove the footnote.

• 3 - I don't see why this case warrants this treatment any more than many others in the lead, all cases that presumably summarize sourced and cited content in the body. As I've argued before, it will not be effective to grant "just this one exception" to the no-refs convention. Per slippery slope, to allow one ref now will be to allow ten refs in the lead by Election Day. This one ref would make it difficult to deny the next, and each additional ref would have a greater precedent. That approach is completely unworkable in my view. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:19, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
• I may have jumped the gun, but I've dealt with exactly this situation elsewhere, so I tried it here just now. I moved the content of the note, making it a quote in a reference, and also combined a duplication of the source, giving them the same name. I hope that works. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:21, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Too specific and a bit biased

Most of this information is too specific for a general summary and description of Donald Trump. If anything it should be under the headings of "Presidency" and "Investigations" Some of this information also seems to be a bit biased in the way it is worded, despite being factual information itself, not that he's a great guy or anything, but that's not what wikipedia is for.

"Many of his comments and actions have also been characterized as racially charged or racist.

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, 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 Trans-Pacific Partnership trade negotiations, the Paris Agreement on climate change, and the Iran nuclear deal, eventually increasing tensions with the country. He recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, imposed import tariffs triggering a trade war with China, and attempted negotiations with North Korea toward its denuclearization.

A special counsel investigation led by Robert Mueller 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 press charges of criminal conspiracy or coordination with Russia. Mueller also investigated Trump for obstruction of justice, and his report neither indicted nor exonerated Trump on that count. A 2019 House impeachment inquiry found that Trump solicited foreign interference in the 2020 U.S. presidential election from Ukraine to help his re-election bid and then obstructed the inquiry itself. The inquiry reported that he withheld military aid and a White House invitation in order to influence Ukraine to publicly announce investigations into his political rivals." Wilsonahrens (talk) 12:10, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Edit_requests, the edit request facility is for requesting specific edits. For more general comments, simply use the "New section" link at the top of this page. I have converted this thread to such a discussion and assigned a somewhat arbitrary heading "Too specific and a bit biased", which you may modify to something better. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:44, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with your comments about being too specific (which I have called "too detailed"), particularly as regards his presidency. Feel free to suggest specific improvements to what you consider biased wording. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:47, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

BTW, the edit request facility is also only for uncontroversial edits; i.e. edits that no reasonable editor would contest. Aside from basic grammar and spelling, there isn't much you could change in this article that would be predictably uncontroversial. He is an inherently controversial topic. Thus there isn't much use for the edit request facility at this article. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

@Wilsonahrens: I should have pinged you yesterday when I changed this section heading. This is the belated ping in case you haven't found the renamed thread. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Impeachment and Impeachment trial

Onetwothreeip wrote in their edit summary that the heading "Should at least be a subheading," no reason given. A report by the Congressional Research Service for members and committees of Congress explains that impeachment and trial are both equal parts of the process to remove a president from office (quote is on page 5): Although the term “impeachment” is commonly used to refer to the removal of a government official from office, the impeachment process, as described in the Constitution, entails two distinct proceedings carried out by the separate houses of Congress. First, a simple majority of the House impeaches—or formally approves allegations of wrongdoing amounting to an impeachable offense, known as articles of impeachment. The articles of impeachment are then forwarded to the Senate where the second proceeding takes place: an impeachment trial. If the Senate, by vote of a two-thirds majority, convicts the official of the alleged offenses, the result is removal from office of those still in office, and, at the Senate’s discretion, disqualification from holding future office.

References

We should either make Impeachment and Trial subheadings of Impeachment proceedings or keep the two top-level headings for the two distinct proceedings. I prefer the last option because–judging by past discussions and current comments–the process seems to be confusing for a number of editors. Initially several editors argued that there is no impeachment if the articles have not been presented to the Senate; now, the new argument seems to be that when the Senate does not convict (no point in using "if") the impeachment is somehow annulled or unmade. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:26, 25 January 2020 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:42, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I absolutely think "impeachment" should be a single level 2 heading. If you want to separate the impeachment from the trial, do it via subheadings. I'm going to go ahead and implement that right now. I also think there is way too much detail in the impeachment process section and it could be trimmed by about half, but I'll hold off for further comment on that. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:48, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Huh? This is what started the chain of edits: [10], [11]. But good to know that somebody is in charge around here. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:54, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Space4Time, do us all a favor and use diffs when you want to talk about somebody's edit. You like to link to the entire previous page, which a) takes a long time to load for such a big article and b) doesn't show what the change was or who made it, so doesn't really illustrate whatever point you were trying to make. In other words I have no idea what you were trying to say. Do you have a problem with the edits I made? Were they in violation of some previous or longtime or consensus version? Did I jump into the middle of an edit war? I am willing to revert if I was in violation of any standard or DS rule. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:26, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought I was linking to the diff. I copied the links above the editor's summaries; I see now that I need to copy the URL in the address bar: [12], [13]. I wouldn't call it an edit war, but there was some back and forth with different editors, and it looked to me like you were making a peremptory decision. Since one of my two acceptable solutions was a level 2 heading with separate subheadings for the impeachment and the trial, I don't have a problem with that, although I would have preferred different titles. I do think your explanation isn't quite correct. "Impeachment and removal" ([14]) is the process set up by the Constitution. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:21, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

(If you click on those links, they go to that date's version of the entire page, rather than the diff. I see now that I need to copy the URL in the address bar It's much easier than that. When you are looking at the article history, just click the "prev" link in front of the edit you want to link to. That leads you to the diff; use its URL. Want a diff for a series of edits? Use the round buttons to choose the sequence you want, then click "compare selected revisions" and use its url.) I'm sorry I butted into the middle of a back-and-forth about how to handle this, but I gather you are OK with the way I did it? You're absolutely right about the constitution; thanks for fixing it. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:03, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I'M OK with it. It's the logical way for formatting it. And thanks for the info on making it easier to complain about edits. I'm gonna paste it to my desktop; it'll probably come in handy soon enough. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:58, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Numerous links to NYT, WaPo, etc

Mandruss: I removed the umpteen links to NYT and WaPo except for the first one and was planning to tackle other repeated links eventually. MOS:DUPLINK and longstanding article convention notwithstanding, I find all that blue color distracting and–since I usually read the sources–I wind up on the Wikipedia article of the source more often than I'd like, especially when I'm tired (or my mouse hand is). Repeat links to the Podunkville Bugle might be helpful to readers who are not familiar with that newspaper but dozens of links to well-known newspapers like WaPo or NYT seem excessive. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:29, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Your comment failed to point out that we're talking only about links to sources in citations, not open prose, so I'll do so for the benefit of editors who don't closely track the article's page history for context.

I don't have said problems with distractions and mistaken clicks, so I guess we cancel each other out on that. I much prefer a single convention for all, for reasons including the beauty of simplicity. To sustain the selective treatment you suggest, there would have to be some way of communicating it to other editors – which sources are obscure enough to link? – and I wouldn't know how to do that. Are we going to create a pinned "Link only these sources" section on this page? And then there would be occasional disagreements about whether a source is obscure enough to link, and I don't feel the issue warrants that time expenditure. Awaiting other comments. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I didn't notice you also mass-removed the WaPo links, so I only restored the NYT ones. I'll hold off on WaPo until this discussion reaches some kind of resolution. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

My guess is that you can go ahead now. I doubt there'll be much, if any, interest in this, and I can always try to get more sleep . Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:58, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Hey, you started the discussion. I have a terrible success rate at predicting what will interest Wikipedia editors, so I'll wait at least a few days. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:03, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Impeachment trial reversion

I believe the original edit that was reverted:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=937524314&oldid=937522061

is more accurate, as scholars have rejected the notion that a crime is needed and abuse is impeachable, not that "Trump had not broken any laws or obstructed Congress." I would, however, support not characterizing Barr as a scholar. So I propose the original be restored. Additional language may be added along the lines of what Space4Time3Continuum2x wrote if that's the consensus, although I tried to be succinct considering the article length. soibangla (talk) 18:26, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

• Trim/delete that bit. This one has confused the sequence and I think should cut off the speculative OR ending. Either version seems OK if not great at conveying/explaining the defense position, up until it says "Their reasoning has been rejected by legal scholars and by Attorney General Bill Barr" as if the Jan 2020 Trump defense is being responded to by a 2019 petition and a 2018 Barr letter on different topics. Clearly, neither of those cold have been rejecting a months-later Trump defense.

The defense position is “House Democrats’ novel conception of ‘abuse of power’ as a supposedly impeachable offense is constitutionally defective,” they wrote. “It supplants the framers’ standard of ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ with a made-up theory that the president can be impeached and removed from office under an amorphous and undefined standard of ‘abuse of power.’”

We don't need to include revisionist history that views irony that Barr had seemed to write against this or that a petition three months before it did so. There are direct reviews of the defense and it's legal chances, go to those and skip the mangled interpretations. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:38, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Contested edits

@SPECIFICO: can you explain what meanings I changed, regarding this edit summary, and what you're referring to with "awkward"? Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Several of your "concising" edits changed the meaning of the article text. It's important that editors can rely on your edit summaries and I was disappointed to find these changes in meaning that were not just copy edits. I restored the NPOV established stable text in a few places. I also find that you sometimes write convoluted, unclear and run-on English sentences, and I repaired a few. I kept some of your wording and did not revert several of your edits, which I thought were good improvements. SPECIFICO talk 01:34, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, where do you think I changed the meaning of something? As for my edit summaries, I did not describe anything as copy editing. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:11, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I would say this is the most egregious example of an edit that is not "concising" by any stretch of the imagination, in that it removed an absolutely key point about how Trump's presidency was launched on the back of his birther bullshit. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

AIDS Epidemic

A little back and forth with new content. Soibangla added to the Donald Trump#Domestic policy Health care section with this diff. Basically a Trump said X and sources dispute it with a ref to a tweet and factcheck.org. I removed it here stating it was undue for this article and that the sources could be better. Then without discussion SPECIFICO added it back here with an additional Washington Post source. The issue is the Washington Post sources does not supported most of the setence. Specifically the while falsely asserting the Obama administration "chose not to" spend any money in that effort. Until 2019, Trump had proposed cutting such funding none is mentioned there. Should this sentence remain in the article? PackMecEng (talk) 17:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

The WaPo source supports what Trump has pledged and doesn't necessarily need to touch on his false assertion about Obama, which the other two sources do, even though WaPo kinda does anyway: "The administration’s plan follows a 2010 HIV/AIDS strategy that the Obama administration devised and updated five years later." The edit is worthy of inclusion. soibangla (talk) 17:22, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Pack, your "without discussion" is gratuitousstruck. Same could gratuitously have been said of your revert. :). SPECIFICO talk 17:50, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay, struck. PackMecEng (talk) 17:51, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I believe this violates WP:WEIGHT. Better off in Presidency of Donald Trump. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:59, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Trump Legal team has not disputed the facts of house democrats arguments.

This is the final sentence currently states the Trump's legal team has not disputed the facts of the democrats arguments.

This is a false statement and needs to be corrected or perhaps preferably simply removed.

For example, in summary, one of the articles of impeachment pertains to obstruction of congress. This is a crime. If Trump's legal team didn't dispute that charge, they would be the worst legal team in history. They obviously aren't. Democrats have argued that Trump's refusal to let certain witnesses testify is obstructing congress. Trump's legal team's argument is that he is invoking presidential privilege.

Furthermore, the facts of the case made by House managers also assert the "quid pro quo" as the abuse of the president's power under the first article of impeachment. This has also been disputed by the President's legal team. They have out right denied these facts with references to the Ukraine President's statements of there being no such quid pro quo in their arguments.

This sentence is not only factually inaccurate but is very clearly written in bias. In the interest of keeping wikipedia and this page a factual and unpartisan historical record, this sentence should promptly be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Killercarlson (talk • contribs) 18:59, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Theories are not the facts. The facts are the facts. Article text is fine. SPECIFICO talk 20:08, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not talking about theories. I'm talking about facts. Have you even watched the hearings? I will gladly provide sources for the dispute of the house managers facts. I am a lawyer. Not some random keyboard warrior trying to insert his bias into a historical article. I find your assertion that the sentence is "fine" insulting to the average person's intelligence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Killercarlson (talk • contribs) 20:27, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

As an attorney, you should be able to enumerate the factual errors. A legal theory is not a fact. A fact is a fact. A theory as to a fact adducing a crime is a theory and a theory is just a theory. SPECIFICO talk 21:26, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Alternate facts 2600:1702:2340:9470:D8C3:E5AB:4813:A9CE (talk) 22:27, 29 January 2020 (UTC)