Talk:Donald Trump

Highlighted open discussions

• #RfC: Description of criminal charges against Trump associates
• #RfC: Should the lead be updated to reflect that Trump has continued to make false or misleading statements throughout his campaign and presidency?

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 Superseded by #15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 (Nov 2016, Dec 2016) (Superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)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 Superseded by #35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 (Sep 2016, February 2017, wording shortened per April 2017, upheld with July 2018) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019)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 Superseded by unlisted consensus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 (Dec 2016, superseded Nov 2024)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 Superseded by #17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)

Description of Mueller inquiry in lead

A few days ago, I added a sentence to the lead describing the current status of the Mueller investigation. It was promptly reverted for reasons that aren't entirely clear to me. (After all, if someone's honest objection is the lack of coverage in the article body, then they can add such coverage or ask me to do so rather than reverting. I'm also a little bemused that one drily factual sentence is considered a "long tirade", but I digress).

The rationale for my edit is simple. Currently, the lead mentions the existence of Mueller's investigation and then parrots Trump's dismissal of it as a "witch hunt". That doesn't seem like a useful or encyclopedic summary. Instead, I'd propose a single factual sentence describing the investigation's outcomes, which can be updated as needed. Assuming that anyone objects to this proposal, could they clarify their reasoning? MastCell ^Talk 00:10, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I think your addition was a bit long for such an overpacked lead section; however, I do think we should have something for the reasons you stated. I'd support a short sentence saying how many indictments and convictions there have been, and perhaps saying how many of those were involved in Trump's election campaign. R2 (bleep) 00:27, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm sort of confused by the idea that this one sentence makes the lead too long, because it doesn't seem to stand up to analysis. The lead of this article, with my addition, had 536 words. By comparison, the lead of Barack Obama has 641 words; that of George W. Bush, 544 words; and that of Bill Clinton, 573 words. Hell, even losing candidates have comparable or longer leads: John McCain, 548 words; Mitt Romney, 547 words; Hillary Clinton, 489 words. The length of this article's lead seems entirely appropriate when looking at comparable biographies. And while I favor making our writing as lean as possible, this is hardly the least relevant sentence in the lead; for example, I'm not sure why it's necessary to parrot Trump's description of the investigation as a "witch hunt" in place of a factual description of the investigation's results. If word count is truly a burning concern, then maybe replace the "witch hunt" sentence with a factual description? MastCell ^Talk 00:41, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I wasn't saying it made the lead too long. What I meant is that there's a lot of highly noteworthy, concise content packed into the lead section, and the listing of which specific members of the Trump team were convicted seemed relatively undue. The listing of convictions of people who aren't mentioned elsewhere in Trump's biography (Gates, Papadopoulos) seems a little coatracky. R2 (bleep) 00:55, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

User:MastCell - usually LEAD changes here need to be TALK before doing. That one really is not a big part of the article or about Trumps BLP material of his life events and family, so I don’t think it fits anyway. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:28, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Something like "The investigation has led to guilty pleas from or convictions of a number of Trump associates." would be an appropriately short summary. The issue would not be with the overall length of the lead but that the sentence you added gave the convictions far too much UNDUE weight relative to other matters of Trump's life. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:35, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

There should be something in there about it, and User:Galobtter's suggestion is a good one.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:44, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Galobtter and Volunteer Marek. R2 (bleep) 05:46, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Added; this associated press article well supports such a statement: "Five people in Trump’s orbit have pleaded guilty to charges in the continuing Mueller probe." Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:42, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

That is highly misleading. The lead now falsely implies that some Trump associates have pleaded guilty of coordinating with Russia in election meddling. Can you explain how that is not a BLP violation? The charges and convictions of Trump campaign officials are related to "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation" and no Trump associate has been charged with colluding with Russia. Politrukki (talk) 08:55, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, it is impossible for someone to be charged with collusion since "collusion is not a crime"™ (by itself, though collusion can constitute multiple crimes, see this article). Do you have any suggestions on how to clarify that? I changed it to "investigation and its offshoots". Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:17, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Quick suggestion: "The investigation has led to guilty pleas from a number of Trump associates who were not charged with coordinating in Russia's efforts." I specifically used the word "collusion" because I had this source at hand. It is marked as "Analysis" (see WP:NEWSORG), but I believe we can use the source, both in the lead and body, in given context without treating "none were charged with colluding with Russians to affect the 2016 election" as an opinion that should be attributed to its authors. Politrukki (talk) 09:53, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

That's a quite good source (and up to date too, which is good since new charges and indictments seem to come regularly); I clarified the sentence to "The investigation has led to guilty pleas not relating to coordination with Russia from a number of Trump associates." Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:11, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Though "guilty pleas not relating to coordination with Russia" is not exactly consistent with sources – we don't know whether any of the information Trump associates have provided to Mueller in exchange for more lenient sentence is related to possible coordination – that's a suitable compromise for now. Politrukki (talk) 10:44, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh yeah, good point. I changed it to The investigation has led to guilty pleas not for charges of coordination with Russia from a number of Trump associates. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:50, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

This is moving in the right direction. I took the liberty to improve the grammar and clarify the scope of charges, by changing the text to: The investigation has led to guilty pleas by a number of Trump associates for charges unrelated to Russia's efforts. I believe this accurately describes the known facts. — JFG ^talk 11:49, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

No, no, no. Boxing this into "Russian efforts" is hugely misleading. Michael Flynn and Maria Butina come to mind. Also, the investigations are ongoing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrX (talk • contribs) 12:50, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

What about them? Flynn was not accused of providing any help to Russians in their attempts at electoral interference, only of lying to the FBI about a post-election conversation with the Russian ambassador. Butina's case is totally unrelated to Trump. — JFG ^talk 13:00, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

"Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to FBI agents about his December 2016 conversations with Sergei Kislyak, then Russia’s ambassador in Washington, about U.S. sanctions imposed on Moscow by the administration of Trump’s Democratic predecessor Barack Obama."
— Reuters

"Butina was then involved with an unsuccessful effort to organize a meeting between Torshin and Trump at an NRA convention in May 2016. Instead, she and Torshin briefly interacted with Donald Trump Jr., the president’s son, at the event, according to documents turned over to Congress."
— The Washington Post

Do you understand now why the previous wording is misleading? We start by saying "links" and then end by saying "coordination", as if to tell our readers "show's over—nothing to see here". This is a far broader investigation than Trump coordinating with Russia.- MrX 🖋 13:14, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

My version is not misleading at all. It states that "a number of Trump associates" did plead guilty to "charges unrelated to Russia's efforts", which is absolutely correct. Flynn's conversations with Kislyak were deemed totally legal; he was only charged for lying to FBI interviewers, which he explains by not remembering he had discussed a particular topic – again the discussion itself was part of his job and is not contested in court. Butina was not a Trump associate, so whatever she did is irrelevant in this article. Your version is misleading by omission and inference. — JFG ^talk 13:24, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

"Flynn's conversations with Kislyak were deemed totally legal" <-- this is not true (in fact it's WP:OR). The fact that he was not charged with anything related to these does not mean they were legal. What it means is that because he decided to cooperate he was charged with lesser charges.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:59, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

because he decided to cooperate he was charged with lesser charges <-- that's your OR; nobody knows which charges Flynn was threatened with, or even whether he was threatened at all. You can bet your bottom dollar that if Flynn had anything to do with Russian election interference, i.e. Mueller's central mandate, he would not have gotten away without such a charge. Regarding "totally legal", I'm happy to claim "totally" as OR, but "legal" is a certainty, because Mueller's team has been very diligent in fiercely pursuing anything illegal they discovered over the course of the investigation. — JFG ^talk 09:07, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Totally legal and oh so groovy, baby!

Do you mean "totally legal" or "very legal & very cool"? :) Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:13, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

They're all totally spies, obviously! — JFG ^talk 14:46, 21 December 2018 (UTC) ---> ---> --->

SAD!ly, the image you've put is very illegal & very cool, so I've removed it. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:32, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

One thing I'd say is that unrelated is different from "not for" and only the latter is supported by the WaPo source above. Flynn did not get charged for the conversations but his charges are still related to the conversations. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:37, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Flynn's charge is only "related" in so far as he talked to a Russian official within his own official duties; there's nothing nefarious here. Flynn went down because he lied to the FBI (for which he got criminally charged) and he apparently lied to the Vice President (for which he first got fired). Let us not forget that the jail-worthy criminal charges against Manafort and Cohen are totally unrelated to Russia's efforts. If we focus only on Flynn's process crime (which itself is a post-election affair, so is indeed unrelated to any election interference), we're missing the meat of the matter and we are gravely misleading readers. — JFG ^talk 13:45, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Cohen's is not "totally unrelated" though the bulk of it is of course about Stormy. There's one charge of lying related to Trump Tower Moscow; however I agree that since the charges are pretty disparate we do need something about their relation to collusion. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:52, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

The bulk of Cohen's charges involve his tax fraud and taxi business, and that's why he's getting serious jail time and several million dollars in financial penalties. The Stormy affair is comparatively minor (for Cohen, but possibly major for Trump). His lies about Trump Tower Moscow are even more minor. — JFG ^talk 14:22, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding me. Taxi fraud? What sources are you reading that say Trump paying off Stormy is minor, for anyone?- MrX 🖋 21:10, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Anyways, I think we need to get back to RS; the one WaPo source we have says "none were charged with colluding with Russians to affect the 2016 election" which I'm not sure entirely supports the "unrelated" phrase you have. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:52, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

That's a fair criticism, and I think the current text properly addresses the perceived issue. Had I just written "guilty pleas by a number of Trump associates for unrelated charges", the reader could legitimately wonder why we call the charges "unrelated" in bulk; unrelated to Mueller's probe? unrelated to Trump? that would be wrong. This is why I specified "for charges unrelated to Russia's efforts", which clearly refers to the scope of the investigation that we just defined as "any links and/or coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russian government in its election interference" in the immediately preceding sentence. This is in my opinion an accurate paraphrase of the WaPo statement, namely that "none were charged with colluding with Russians to affect the 2016 election". — JFG ^talk 14:16, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I've been looking at this and overall I'm okay with the wording as of now (i.e yours). Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:36, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

The investigation has led to guilty pleas by a number of Trump associates for charges not about collusion with Russia.? I think that is supported by WaPo. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:01, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

At the same time that makes it seem like we're saying "NO COLLUSION" when there is more and more evidence on that collusion. So I'd think we'd need to include the fact that they provided information on links between the Trump campaign and Russia as a result of the plea deals, but then that'd make the whole thing too long.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:14, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Odd since the truth is the opposite of that.--MONGO (talk) 14:18, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Source? Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:27, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

[1]--MONGO (talk) 18:57, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Three months ago, Bob Woodward said he can find any collusion so that's now the truth? Perhaps someone should let Mueller know.- MrX 🖋 21:00, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What is "hugely misleading" is the version you modified, because the reader is now led to believe that "a number of Trump associates" pled guilty to helping "the Russian government in its election interference" (because the text omits saying what those people were actually charged with). I strongly object, and would revert if I were sure of not violating the new rules. @Awilley: that's a good test case: am I allowed to revert MrX's edit[2] under the "replied to user's objections on talk" provision, or would my first edit[3] iterating on the text (with reference to this discussion) be considered "challenged" by MrX, and therefore impossible to restore until further consensus develops? Am I allowed to challenge MrX's change in turn by removing the whole sentence (return to statu quo ante) until a version emerges that is acceptable to all parties? — JFG ^talk 13:17, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

@JFG Having only glanced at the situation on my way out the door, it looks to me like MrX was performing a wholesale revert on Gallobter's addition that you had happened to reword along the way. Since you don't seem to have used your 1RR yet, and since the working talkpage consensus is 3:1 for having some caveat, I'd say you're safe to do a revert or partial revert of MrX's edit. (Note I could be wrong in my assumptions about any of the above, I've literally only had time to look at it for a minute or two.) ~Awilley (talk) 13:42, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I have reverted to the version including the proviso about criminal charges being "unrelated to Russia's efforts".[4] I do welcome further discussion and amendment of the text. — JFG ^talk 13:57, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Galobtter's suggestion (way above) is a good start. It will be challenging to be more detailed because of the extent and diversity of the crimes, but we will probably eventually have to allow for criminal convictions that don't arise from sweet plea deals.- MrX 🖋 12:39, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

• For what it is worth I agree with the version JFG reinstated here. " The investigation has led to guilty pleas by a number of Trump associates for charges unrelated to Russia's efforts." I think that is in a good place for the lead without going to deep. PackMecEng (talk) 14:05, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

  I agree with JFG edit as well, and might take it a step further that guilt by association is an insinuation that is borderline BLP violating, so not sure any of this belongs here.--MONGO (talk) 14:11, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

  Perhaps I'm not being clear, so let me try again. These two adjacent sentences "After Trump dismissed FBI Director James Comey, the Justice Department appointed Robert Mueller as Special Counsel to investigate "any links and/or coordination" between the Trump campaign and the Russian government in its election interference. The investigation has led to guilty pleas by a number of Trump associates for charges unrelated to Russian interference." implicitly narrow the scope of the investigation in a misleading way. According to our own article, "The ongoing Special Counsel investigation is a United States law enforcement and counterintelligence investigation of the Russian government's efforts to interfere, with primary focus on the 2016 presidential election. This investigation includes any possible links or coordination between Donald Trump's presidential campaign and the Russian government, "and any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation." In addition, the scope of the investigation reportedly includes potential obstruction of justice by Trump and others." The "any matters" part is important, and at least partially negated by the sentence that Galobtter and JFG added.- MrX 🖋 15:11, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

  Would After Trump dismissed FBI Director James Comey, the Justice Department appointed Robert Mueller as Special Counsel to investigate "any links and/or coordination" between the Trump campaign and the Russian government in its election interference and any matters arising from that. fix that issue? Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:17, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

  How much detail do we want to go into for the lead? If the reader would like more information on what they are investigating they can just click the blue link to the article about it. PackMecEng (talk) 19:07, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

  Enough so that the reader has a fundamental understanding of the subject without having to consult other articles.- MrX 🖋 21:05, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

  @Galobtter: Yes that would help along with my edit to the effect that the investigation is ongoing.- MrX 🖋 21:05, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Too much detail and weight in my view. The fact that we'd be quoting primary source materials suggests that we'd be getting too far in the weeds for an article of this scope. R2 (bleep) 23:19, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I strenuously object to language like "unrelated to Russia's efforts" or "unrelated to Russian interference." These are unsourced and patently false and echo a partisan talking point. When you're convicted of lying about your contacts with Russians who were interfering in the election, then your conviction is related to Russian interference. R2 (bleep) 21:32, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

You are mistaken, all the sources and information are found in the body. PackMecEng (talk) 21:54, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the direct connection. Please provide links to the specific sources here. R2 (bleep) 22:03, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

You are welcome to do your own legwork. PackMecEng (talk) 22:49, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I am, but you are not welcome to disrupt the consensus-building process by making bold statements and then refusing to back them up when asked. R2 (bleep) 23:07, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh please, I am not here to do your homework for you. You disputed what several people agreed on and then demanded things from others. Not how it works, it is in the article. PackMecEng (talk) 23:17, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I honestly don't know how to do what you're calling"my homework." You said there are sources cited in the article that says all of the convictions were unrelated to Russian interference. I seriously don't know how to find these mysterious sources, because there's no sentence in the body that says that. Do you expect me to read through each of the cited sources one by one? R2 (bleep) 05:34, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh please, I am not here to do your homework for you. -- You are if you're a cooperating editor acting in good faith with the intent of improving the article. You claimed that another editor is mistaken and that all the sources and information are found in the body. It is your responsibility to point them out when asked. You disputed what several people agreed on -- That's not true. and then demanded things from others. -- He asked you to support your claims, and it is your responsibility to do so. Not how it works -- Yes, actually, it is. it is in the article -- Unsupported claim. -- Jibal (talk) 19:56, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Ahrtoodeetoo, we should definitely use "guilty plea" over "convictions" - the AP summarizes these as "Five people in Trump’s orbit have pleaded guilty to charges in the continuing Mueller probe." and these have largely been (except for Manafort) guilty pleas and so the version you inserted is false as there haven't been a "number of" convictions of Trump associates. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:43, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

How is "a number of convictions" false? A guilty plea is a type of conviction. R2 (bleep) 05:37, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

WTF? In judicial proceedings, you are first suspected, then indicted for various charges, to which you may plead guilty or innocent, then you are tried, and finally you are convicted or set free. Your comment does not make any sense whatsoever. — JFG ^talk 06:59, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

There's a definite distinction between plea deals and convictions (by a jury) which is important to note, especially as the deals are also providing information to the investigation. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:18, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I take exception to JFG's "no sense whatsoever" comment, but ok, technically a guilty plea doesn't turn into a conviction until sentencing, so I'm ok with using "guilty pleas" instead of "convictions." R2 (bleep) 08:34, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

User:PackMecEng The recent add “The ongoing investigations have led to a conviction of a number of Trump associates.” is misstated, it gives a false impression that they were guilty to coordination with Russian election interference. My points earlier also still apply: this should be removed as practice is TALK and get consensus before edits to lead per WP:ONUS; that associate names/status is too small a portion of this article to suit WP:LEAD; and that an associates case/status is not a direct part of Trumps BLP a major part of Trump life or his choices so is a bit WP:OFFTOPIC. May have minor mention here, but should not be in the lead. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:43, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

So far, I count six editors who support the more precise wording, with only two preferring the shorter ambiguous version. I have restored the long version accordingly, and linked to our article specifying the aforementioned criminal charges. The article now says "The ongoing investigation has led to guilty pleas by several Trump associates for criminal charges unrelated to Russia's efforts." — JFG ^talk 14:14, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

With MrX's comment today,[5] we now have 7 editors supporting this version, and only one (Ahrtoodeetoo) opposing it repeatedly. Time to drop the stick? — JFG ^talk 20:28, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

@JFG: I don't agree with "unrelated to Russia's efforts" in that line. We don't know what's in the redacted portions of the charging documents. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:45, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

@JFG: For clarity, I was also opposing it repeatedly, in other directions than R2. While I think this at least does not mislead, my objections are that it does not belong in this article lead at all. (Not a major part of article, and offtopic just not Trump BLP.) Cheers Markbassett (talk) 12:51, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

After JFG's edit, the lead states that the Mueller investigation "has led to guilty pleas by several Trump associates for criminal charges unrelated to Russia's efforts." (emphasis mine). The emphasized wording is clearly and unequivocally false. Michael Cohen's guilty plea was clearly related to "Russia's efforts" (New York Times: " Donald J. Trump was more involved in discussions over a potential Russian business deal during the presidential campaign than previously known, his former lawyer Michael D. Cohen said Thursday in pleading guilty to lying to Congress. Mr. Trump’s associates pursued the project as the Kremlin was escalating its election sabotage effort meant to help him win the presidency."; Guardian: "One of Donald Trump’s closest advisers spoke with a Kremlin official about securing Russian government support for a planned Trump Tower in Moscow during the 2016 presidential election campaign"). It really doesn't get any clearer than that.

Even more obviously, Michael Flynn (Trump's former National Security Advisor) pleaded guilty to lying about his involvement in Russia's efforts to avoid sanctions for its interference in the 2016 election ("Flynn pleaded guilty in Mueller’s probe of Russian interference in the 2016 election more than a year ago, admitting that he lied to the FBI about conversations with Russia’s ambassador to the United States", etc.)

It is not at all clear to me how any competent and honest editor can read those sources, or the dozens like them, and then write that the guilty pleas were "unrelated to Russia's efforts"—wording that is completely at odds with the reliable sources and with the truth. I'm very concerned that obviously false statements are readily accepted by the editors here, and none of the possible explanations are particularly heartening. Please correct this factual error. If it remains in place, I would like to hear justifications for writing a falsehood into the lead of this highly viewed article. In the interest of transparency, pushing material that one knows, or should know, is false into an article is a serious behavioral issue, and one that I will pursue in the appropriate venues. MastCell ^Talk 02:14, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree, so I just struck "unrelated to Russia's efforts". We don't know all the details in the Flynn sentencing documents anyway; it could involve Russian interference. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:39, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree as well. Gandydancer (talk) 03:08, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Please read the context of the paragraph in question and relate that to what was added. You cannot take the one sentence in a vacuum without considering the context of the rest of the paragraph. The sentence is not saying charges unrelated to Russia in general, just that no charges related to Russian interference in the 2016 election. Big distinction and something your sources make clear as well. PackMecEng (talk) 14:49, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

• MastCell Muboshgu Gandydancer Perhaps you three would like to contribute to the RFC below on this subject. So far there is clear consensus to include it but things can change with discussion. PackMecEng (talk) 03:43, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you PackMecEng, I had the page open and just clicked "edit" on this section to write exactly the same thing and your comment was already there. Also, from looking at some of the arguments and sources provided here and below, it looks like people are thinking different things when they read "unrelated to Russian efforts". ~Awilley (talk) 03:54, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

This looks like a grammatical dispute. "Russia's efforts" refers to "election interference" in the earlier sentence. None of those sources contradict that. If you want to be specific and change "Russia's efforts" to "Russia's efforts to interfere in the election" I don't think you'd get strong disagreement but I don't think it's necessary. D.Creish (talk) 03:51, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

The issue is that we have not established that Trump and his people did not ask for Russia to interfere with the election. In fact, Trump actually did ask Russia for an assist: [6] - MrX 🖋 12:56, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I do not think any reasonable person takes that comment as actually asking Russia to hack Hillary. PackMecEng (talk) 14:39, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

The source is entitled "Trump Invited the Russians to Hack Clinton. Were They Listening?", so your assertion is not only obviously false, but bizarre. Why do editors on this talkpage continually insist that 2 + 2 = 5? It's off-putting. MastCell ^Talk 16:31, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

MastCell, obviously it was a joke as hacking is a crime! Trump is well known for his inappropriate humour. If he were serious he or his team would have made anonymous phone calls rather than arrange on national television a criminal operation! I watched Trump say that at the time and my response was to laugh rather than to misinterpret humour as literal seriousness.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 09:31, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

This "it was obviously just a joke" talk is astonishing IMO. If you have followed Trump's remarks all along you would know how frequently he just blurts out the truth in one of his rambling stream of consciousness remarks. According to one news report of the time: Trump’s hacking request was so egregious that it earned immediate pushback from other Republicans. Speaker Paul Ryan’s spokesman issued a statement saying, “Russia is a global menace led by a devious thug. Putin should stay out of this election.” Even Mike Pence, Trump’s own vice-presidential nominee, contradicted his running mate. “If it is Russia [that hacked the DNC] and they are interfering in our elections, I can assure you both parties and the United States government will ensure there are serious consequences,” he said.[7] Gandydancer (talk) 16:11, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and I did say it was inappropriate humour; inappropriate humour that was widely criticised, as you have pointed out. Trump did not liaise with the Russians to do any hack. Trump himself condemned the Russians for interference and challenged Putin on this when they met. In any event, CNN leaked their presidential candidate questions prior to the head to head debate to - in a similar sense - “hack” the election in favour of Hillary Clinton but her biography does not even mention this, nevermind the lead.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:25, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Literaturegeek, if you thought it was a joke, that's fine—I don't care. Reasonable people can think that. I objected to PackMecEeng's assertion that no reasonable person could think otherwise, especially since it immediately followed a reliable source proving the contrary. MastCell ^Talk 16:35, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Your "In any event" is a complete non-sequitur; this discussion is not about the alleged misdeeds of Clinton (and how is what CNN supposedly did relevant to her biography in any way?) so I'm not sure why people constantly bring her up when talking about Trump two years after she lost the election (but her emails?). Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:30, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

She should not have accepted the leaked questions and immediately publicly disclosed what CNN did. You can’t have one BLP standard for one person but not the other. It is an example of bias against Trump on this article and favour towards Clinton, instead of sensible NPOV standards being applied across all articles. There is a glaring trend towards squeezing as much negative content on Trump into this article and as little positive.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:38, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

We follow sources. It's really that simple. Let's stay focused on the subject of this article. - MrX 🖋 13:37, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Discuss content, not editors. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:10, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

This is not a soapbox. Your whataboutism comments about CNN, Clinton, and the DNC have no bearing on this article. Your own bias is blatantly obvious, so your sweeping (false) charges of bias are clear projection. If you think that properly sourced positive content about Donald Trump is missing, you know how to add it ... but I advise staying away from articles on subjects about which you have strong feelings; that makes it difficult to be a good faith Wikipedia editor. -- Jibal (talk) 20:09, 29 December 2018 (UTC) Jibal, clearly you know little about me. I am not even American, I have lived in the U.K. my whole life so whoever is the president of USA has no impact on my life. I have mixed feelings about Trump in that sometimes his behaviour makes me cringe a little and other times he is quite funny and entertaining. But whatever feelings I have they are not strong. I do have a medical POV - which is not surprising as I am a WP medical editor - in that Trump’s efforts to construct a wall along the Mexico (a narco-state) border would save many thousands of lives being destroyed by methamphetamine - which often induces an irreversible treatment resistant psychosis in a small but significant percent of users, which is hell on earth. Seeing as Bill Clinton of the democrats ordered most of the existing wall along the Mexico border be built in 1994 I don’t even see how that is politically biased. I do think, as an outsider, that Americans are very tribal in that Democrats now hate Trump’s wall proposal even though the Democrats built large swathes of the wall in 1994 without any real drama. I do understand it is not a soapbox but you have now publicly accused me of being strongly biased in favour of Trump/republicans and against Clinton/democrats, and pretty much told me I am not welcome here, so I have to publicly defend myself and explain just what my views are, which I’d rather have kept private.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:03, 30 December 2018 (UTC) I think, Jibal, your attempt to persuade me to stop contributing here and your emotion you display in some of your posts may suggest you are the one who possesses overly strong viewpoints on this topic rather than me.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:40, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I do not think any reasonable person takes that comment as actually asking Russia to hack Hillary. -- It is nefarious to assert that anyone who has a view different from yours isn't reasonable. As MastCell noted, the very article mentioned in the comment your responded to has reasonable people doing just that ... and there's a considerable body of competent analysis looking at the correlation between Trump's statement and Russian actions. In any case what editors do or don't think is irrelevant. -- Jibal (talk) 20:36, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Chit chat — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awilley (talk • contribs) 02:36, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Thanks for sharing what you think. PackMecEng (talk) 20:44, 29 December 2018 (UTC) That's not a good faith characterization of my comment. -- Jibal (talk) 20:52, 29 December 2018 (UTC) Are you assuming bad faith about my good faith comment? PackMecEng (talk) 01:23, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk pages go off the rails quickly. Clearly, as per MastCell, this article should not state Trump's POV as fact. The facts are he's almost certainly involved in many crimes of his campaign, as stated by many sources. Manafort, Flynn, etc are some of the most important people in the story of Trump and his life. PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 22:36, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

so your POV is fact and his isn't? עם ישראל חי (talk) 22:54, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

That has pretty much nothing to do with the question being asked. PackMecEng (talk) 01:10, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Description of criminal charges against Trump associates

Should the bolded language below be removed from the last paragraph of the lead section?

After Trump dismissed FBI Director James Comey, the Justice Department appointed Robert Mueller as Special Counsel to investigate possible links between the Trump campaign and the Russian government regarding election interference, and any matters arising from that. The ongoing investigation has led to guilty pleas by several Trump associates for criminal charges unrelated to Russia's efforts. Trump has repeatedly denied accusations of collusion and obstruction of justice, calling the investigation a politically motivated "witch hunt".

R2 (bleep) 19:29, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• No It clarifies what is important. PackMecEng (talk) 19:30, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
• Yes per WP:V and WP:NPV. I believe this is a false statement and it does not appear to be verified either by an inline citation or by content in the article body that is verified by an inline citation. When you plead guilty to lying to the FBI about your contacts with Russian who were interfering with an election, then charges cannot be neutrally described as "unrelated" to Russian interference. R2 (bleep) 19:39, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

The connection you are making is a wrong inference. Flynn's guilty plea only relates to his conversations with ambassador Kislyak (after the election, to boot). I have not seen any assertion by Mueller or any U.S. agencies that Kislyak was involved in election interference, therefore the trail stops here. — JFG ^talk 21:51, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

The current language doesn't say that none of the charges were for involvement in Russian interference. It says none of the charges were related to election interference. That's a big difference. Maybe that's the solution, so say none of the charges were for involvement in Russian inference? R2 (bleep) 22:01, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

We could certainly discuss further improvements to the text after the RfC concludes. Modifying the phrase while in progress would be confusing to participants. I still believe the wording "criminal charges unrelated to Russia's efforts" is clear enough in context, because we just mentioned that Mueller is investigating responsibilities and potential complicities in the Russian interference. — JFG ^talk 22:17, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

• I think this whole paragraph should be rewritten. I believe it is only understandable if you already know the story. Russia's efforts to do what? Collusion with whom to do what? I agree that the bolded text is misleading, as some of the charges are related and some are not.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:01, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
• No – The bolded statement is perfectly accurate and well-sourced. The Washington Post wrote: "Four former Trump campaign officials have pleaded guilty in Mueller’s investigation, though none were charged with colluding with Russians to affect the 2016 election."[8] Omitting this part of the sentence, in context, would mislead readers into thinking that Trump associates did plead guilty to helping Russia, which none of them were even accused of. — JFG ^talk 20:34, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Why don't we change our language to reflect that Washington Post source? I'd be fine with that. R2 (bleep) 22:07, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I have added accurate language citing WaPo in the body. I don't think it's appropriate to modify the lede section text while an RfC is in progress, but we could discuss it afterwards. — JFG ^talk 22:17, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

• No. This sentence is factual and it reflects the WP:WEIGHT of coverage about him by reliable sources. It would be massively misleading to just say "guilty pleas" without any hint as to what they were for. And this material has already been discussed, above, and seems to have a rough consensus. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:55, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
• Yes We don't know that the bolded statement is true. In Flynn's case, we know that he lied to the FBI about his contact with Kislyak. Do we know for sure that Russian election interference didn't come up in their conversations? No. Because Flynn's sentencing statement was heavily redacted. It's best to leave that clause out. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:56, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
• Yes. We cannot definitively say this. And even if we could, that does not need to be in the lead section. Neutrality^talk 05:20, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
• Yes - The sources presented by MastCell, and the subsequent discussion, have convinced me to that my initial instinct was correct. The wording in question could be considered narrowly factual, but it is far more likely to be interpreted as exoneration of Trump and his inner circle, which would be misleading. - MrX 🖋 12:37, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
• Yes, although some better alternative is needed. As it currently stands, it gives the impression that the individuals did not collude with Russia, which we do not yet know. In fact, it seems likely that one or more of these individuals may have pleaded to a lesser charge as part of their cooperation. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:05, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

By the same token without it, it makes it look like all of them did collude with Russia to interfere in the election. Misleading in the other direction. PackMecEng (talk) 16:10, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

• Yes appears to me to be a clear case of WP:OR - that is, it's being added as an indirect surmisal by editors who don't actually have a source for it, and thus it's clearly against Wikipedia policy. I also agree with Muboshgu (talk)'s points above. Ewen Douglas (talk) 15:30, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Source was added to the relevant section of the body. No OR involved. PackMecEng (talk) 16:09, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Even that sentence in the body is a clear example of WP:SYNTH - it "implies a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source", so yes, it's original research, according to that policy. Ewen Douglas (talk) 16:14, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Here is the source Washintong Post and here is what the source says Four former Trump campaign officials have pleaded guilty in Mueller’s investigation, though none were charged with colluding with Russians to affect the 2016 election. PackMecEng (talk) 16:27, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Opened a dedicated thread below: #Word-for-word quotation of source considered synthesis?? — JFG ^talk 17:45, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I addressed this below in that thread. I stand by my vote for removal, as I still feel the current wording would lead a reader to believe that everyone working on the Trump campaign has been exonerated from accusations of collusion, which clearly is not true (yet). Ewen Douglas (talk) 17:58, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

• No YASSSS and I removed it: we cannot have that sort of apologist commentary in the lead. And without it the statement is of course verifiably correct. Drmies (talk) 22:09, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Drmies The question is if they should be removed. If you think they should be removed it would be a yes vote. PackMecEng (talk) 00:53, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

PackMecEng, thanks and merry Christmas! Drmies (talk) 21:39, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

• No - misstated RFP. Delete that whole line as injected without prior consensus per ONUS, leading into this whole Run Around. And basically it just is not appropriate to LEAD or the BLP. Chasing what wording incorrectly poses the rest of the line as if that is not in question. Markbassett (talk) 13:01, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
• Yes. The "unrelated to Russia" wording needs to be removed, because it is unequivocally false. Flynn's and Cohen's crimes were directly related to Russia. (See #Writing falsehoods into the article, above). Separately, if an RfC concludes that false material should be written into an article, then there is something seriously wrong with the RfC process or with the group of editors participating. Alternate wording could be proposed, and I'm sensitive to the need to avoid incorrect implications. But at a minimum, wording needs to be, you know, true. I can't believe I have to say this. This talkpage is like bizarro Wikipedia. MastCell ^Talk 16:28, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
• No. I have added two sources that directly support the claim, see [9] and [10], which render complains about verifiability and original research moot. The caveat must be included or we are falsely implying that the guilty pleas were directly related to alleged collusion with Russia. Another possibility is rewording the claim; I have suggested something like "Trump associated who were not charged with colluding with Russia", which was consistent with the WaPo source already in the article. If there is no agreement on possible wording, guilty pleas should not be mentioned at all and not least because mentioning them unduely draw focus on matters that are not directly relevant to Trump. Politrukki (talk) 21:44, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
• No - Many sources have been provided to support it, several good ones (including BBC) just in the comment above. D.Creish (talk) 22:09, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
• Yes - The current text is demonstrably false. Removing the false text moves toward NPOV, as per my detailed comments at: [11]. I also believe that removal should take place before this discussion is closed as removal of the text is neutral. O3000 (talk) 01:16, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

  CNBC: "In fact, [Mueller] has obtained guilty pleas to various crimes unrelated to collusion from Trump's former national security advisor Michael Flynn, Trump campaign official Rick Gates and campaign advisor George Papadopoulos."[12] BBC: "Have others [than Flynn] pleaded guilty in the Mueller probe? ¶Yes, although not on charges related to collusion with Russia.[13] Do you have a specific reason to reject reliable sources and present "alternative facts"? If reliable sources use the word "collusion" as a shorthand, whether collusion is a crime or not is immaterial. Politrukki (talk) 09:19, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

There is no crime named collusion. So, of course no one has been charged with this non-existent crime. But, they have been charged and pled guilty to crimes related to Trump and Russians. The current text is misleading. O3000 (talk) 17:03, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

O3000, the source says “unrelated to” which describes the context of a crime not the crime itself.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 07:54, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Colluding with Russia to affect the U.S. election is indeed a crime, despite the fact that the relevant statutes don't use the word "collusion". -- Jibal (talk) 20:59, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

See my links below. There's a huge gap between "not specifically charged with collusion" and the current much-more-broad "charges unrelated to Russia's efforts." Numerous sources relate these charges directly back to that topic. eg. Vox, CNN, NPR. Saying that it is "unrelated to Russia's efforts" is wishful editorializing by an editor, completely disconnected from the facts and without even the slightest bit of support in the sources. --Aquillion (talk) 20:39, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

We don't go by sources connecting crimes somehow to the Russian govt, we go by Mueller. Unless Mueller himself said that the charges are a consequence of collusion/Russian govt actions/efforts, we don't need to draw WP:CRYSTAL conclusions on a topic with limited facts and unlimited speculation and conspiracy theories. wumbolo ^^^ 17:08, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• No, per User:Politrukki, whose sources discredit most of the ‘Yes’ commenters’ arguments.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 09:37, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
• Yes, unnecessary detail unrelated to this very specific article. Keep the minutiae to those articles. Keiiri (talk) 12:15, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

• Yes: "unrelated to Russia's efforts" is vague and potentially misleading, as some of the charges/guilty pleas/convictions are "related". --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:49, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
• No per Politrukki. This is very relevant because Russia's election interference is the whole premise of the paragraph, and we'd want to clarify this to be BLP-compliant. Whether or not collusion is a crime is irrelevant here – we're talking about crimes related to collusion. This is about an ongoing investigation which can make this RfC useless in ictu oculi so WP:SYNTH should be "allowed" here to some degree. I am certainly open to any counter-arguments to citing the BBC (after all, if we can scrutinize The Guardian, we should scrutinize the BBC as well). wumbolo ^^^ 21:50, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
• No I was sent to this RfC by bot. Voting "no" per JFG, MelanieN, Politrukki and Wumbolo. DynaGirl (talk) 16:38, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
• Yes, as currently written, "unrelated to Russia's efforts" is vague and potentially misleading. What sources say is "none were charged with colluding with Russians to affect the 2016 election". Which is much more specific. That some sort of 'qualifying text', is needed, I would probably agree with, but this isn't it. Pincrete (talk) 17:42, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
• Yes, the current wording goes beyond what the source says to the point where it's essentially uncited. "...though none were charged with colluding with Russians to affect the 2016 election" does not even remotely parse to saying, in encyclopedia voice in the lead, that their convictions are "for criminal charges unrelated to Russia's efforts." We could perhaps find a more careful wording, but the important thing is to get the bolded text out first, since it's flatly unsupported by the sources. There is a vast gap between "not specifically charged with colluding with Russia" and "unrelated to that investigation." Plenty of sources relate them to Russia. Vox: But in November, [Michael Flynn] made a plea deal with Mueller too, for lying to Congress about efforts to build a Trump Tower in Moscow. CNN: "Former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to making false statements to Congress in his testimony about the Russia investigation." Calling this "unrelated" is a flat-out lie. NPR: W. Samuel Patten pleaded guilty in August 2018 to failing to register as a foreign agent for lobbying work he performed for a political party in Ukraine called Opposition Bloc. Prosecutors said Patten partnered with a Russian national to lobby on behalf of the pro-Russia party..., and During the 2016 campaign, Michael Flynn led chants of "lock her up" at the Republican National Convention, and after Trump's victory, was appointed to serve as his first national security adviser. But he lasted less than a month on the job before resigning, and in December 2017, he pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his contacts with the Russian ambassador during the transition. --Aquillion (talk) 20:36, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
• Yes – it's far fetched to conclude that all these indictments are unrelated to what Mueller is investigating, even if most are. Dicklyon (talk) 01:38, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
• Yes - It is both more succinct and less controversial for the lead to simply state they were convicted. It is more appropriate to detail any relationship for each conviction to Russia, or lack of any relationship to Russia, in the body of the text related to each conviction.--Saranoon (talk) 06:24, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
• Yes - the only way to wedge this language into the statement is to heavily rely on a combination of original research and synthesis, which is clearly not permissible. The statement with without this language is easily verifiable and a reasonable summary of the available reliable sources on the the topic; with the language it is not. Snow ^{let's rap} 05:41, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
• (Summoned by bot) No per MelanieN and Politrukki. (The wording already appears to have changed?) Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:41, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
• Yes remove it; it's WP:SYNTHESIS and it's designed to crowbar in a political point. Either of those reasons alone would be enough to remove it. The only 'no' votes are coming from fairly clear partisans in this matter. The "Yes" votes appear to rely on Wikipedia policy. Ewen Douglas (talk) 03:51, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Extended discussion

The current wording is technically factual. I was concerned with an earlier version because it could imply that the case is closed and there was no collusion between the Trump people and Russia to influence the election, which of course is still an open question. With the copyediting that has occurred since then, I'm reasonably comfortable with the current version. - MrX 🖋 19:37, 20 December 2018 (UTC) ETA: I've reconsidered in light of new arguments.- MrX 🖋 12:41, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "technically factual," but if you're saying the wording is accurate, then you need to be able to back that up with a citation. R2 (bleep) 19:41, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

No Trump associates have plead guilty to working with Russia to influence the election. I'm not aware that anyone has contested that fact.- MrX 🖋 19:52, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

"Working with Russia to influence the election" isn't a crime. But lying about your contacts with Russians while they are trying to interfere with the election is certainly related to the interference. The bottom line, however, is that everything in Wikipedia needs to be verifiable, this statement is included. If you can't back it up with a source, then it must go. Wikipedia 101. R2 (bleep) 21:57, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

FYI I have now added the WaPo quote to the article body,[14] but I can't remove your {{cn}} because of 1RR. — JFG ^talk 22:10, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

The disputed language doesn't conform to that source, so the cn tag still applies. However if we conform the lead language to the source then I'm satisfied and will gladly remove the tag. R2 (bleep) 22:14, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

"Working with Russia to influence the election"' isn't a crime" -- It is, actually. Among other things it falls under conspiracy to defraud the United States: https://www.justice.gov/jm/criminal-resource-manual-923-18-usc-371-conspiracy-defraud-us "To conspire to defraud the United States means primarily to cheat the Government out of property or money, but it also means to interfere with or obstruct one of its lawful governmental functions by deceit, craft or trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest. It is not necessary that the Government shall be subjected to property or pecuniary loss by the fraud, but only that its legitimate official action and purpose shall be defeated by misrepresentation, chicane or the overreaching of those charged with carrying out the governmental intention." ... and there are other statutes regarding working with foreign nationals for personal gain that specifically attach to Trump or anyone who would benefit from his election. -- Jibal (talk) 21:13, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Jibal Hmm not quite “working with Russia” being a crime. That is the USC chosen for indicting the 13 Russians, along with a few charges of bank or wire fraud and identity fraud that were part of posing as not Russians. Skipping over that no link to those is made to Trump associates, theories why it wasn’t 52 USC 30121, and the question of if this application of what is commonly used for Medicare fraud would even work in the event one of them chooses to go to trial, it is still (a) an indictment not yet shown a crime and (b) none of the ordinary U.S. citizens who “worked with” them have been so indicted. A “worked with” association of even participating (well beyond anything mentioned for any US citizen) is not usually criminal in the Medicare fraud application of this it seems — it seems it takes a knowing “conspiracy”, of a “planned the effort” or “managed events” type. That or actually *doing* the work in an illegal method. A generic “working with” Russia is going too far, that is not a crime. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 13:47, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

? No, it is not “certainly ‘related’”, this is about it being quite the other way around. The line is about no associate was tied to Russian Interference in any of the convictions — that the crimes are definitely *not* ‘related’ to Russian Interference. Talking with one Russian while some other Russian trolls on Facebook is too many degrees of separation to properly call “related”. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:49, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Alternate proposal

I will withdraw the RfC if we can get consensus for the following proposal. Change:

The ongoing investigation has led to guilty pleas by several Trump associates for criminal charges unrelated to Russia's efforts.

to

The ongoing investigation has led to guilty pleas by several Trump associates, though none were charged with colluding with Russian interference efforts.

This is based on this source helpfully provided by JFG. R2 (bleep) 23:21, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

• The latter part of the second sentence is almost the exact same as the source: though none were charged with colluding with Russians to affect the 2016 election. Would need to be reworded further. Anarchyte (talk | work) 03:55, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

"Charged with colluding" is an impossibility because "collusion" (whatever that is) is not a crime. Treason or "providing aid and comfort to the enemy" would be a crime. The key point to note is that none of those people were accused of helping or supporting Russian interference efforts in any way, much less conspiring to organize such efforts (and by now Mueller has charged a litany of people who performed and directed this interference operation – all Russians, plus a hapless American who created fake identities at their behest). Maybe keep it short: "though none were charged with helping Russia"? It's clear from context that we are talking about election interference. — JFG ^talk 06:55, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

What about "though none were charged with coordinating with Russia"? Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:03, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Treason in the USA is a war-related crime. The USA is not at war with Russia. Russia is not the "enemy", so there is no possibility that anyone could be charged with treason or "providing aid and comfort to the enemy" (which is a partial quotation of the definition of treason). The Rosenbergs were not charged with treason. Anyway, the paragraph is too vague, as I said above. Terms like "collusion" and "efforts" don't convey anything in particular. The paragraph would be much better if it was shorter and sharper.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:54, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, treason is not the crime they would be charged with if they were colluding with Russia. Regarding your last point, try your hand at a shorter version in Talk:Donald Trump/sandbox? Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:43, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: Totally agree. Unfortunately the "treason" word has been recently mentioned by several commentators in the Flynn case, including his judge! "Collusion" is legally undefined; "conspiracy" would be something of substance, but again, nobody has been accused of conspiring with Russia. — JFG ^talk 08:47, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ahrtoodeetoo and Jack Upland: I would support this wording:

The ongoing investigation has led to guilty pleas by several Trump associates, although none of them were charged with helping Russia.

What do you think? — JFG ^talk 14:34, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Sounds strange to me, considering "helping Russia" is not a crime. FritsNL (talk) 15:37, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

It's not ideal for the reason identified by FritsNL but think it's an improvement over the current version, so I'd support it. I think we can mitigate the problem by changing the wording from "charged with" to "charged for." "Charged with X" typically implies that X is a crime, where as "charged for X" is bit less legally rigorous and therefore arguably gives us some wiggle room. It's also quite concise which is always a plus in my view. R2 (bleep) 17:22, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps you're looking for "accused of". Any use of "charged" will mean crime to most Americans, if not our former masters to the east. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:31, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I was about to write that the problem with using "accused of" is that lots of people have accused Trump and his associates of colluding with the Russians, just not the DOJ. But even that's not true. For all we know the DOJ may have accused Trump associates of collusion under seal or redaction. Maybe this: The ongoing investigation has led to guilty pleas by several Trump associates, although the Department of Justice has not publicly accused any of them of helping Russia. R2 (bleep) 17:39, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

"not publicly accused them" sounds like skirting the issue and engaging in speculation that there may be hidden indictments ready to be revealed any minute now, to finally spell the end of Trump's presidency… as has been speculated for the last two years. Readers have speculation fatigue. Meanwhile Mueller has clearly identified who did what on the Russia front (Internet Research Agency trolls, Concord Catering and one clueless swindler in California), and those were so far not any of the Trump aides that were investigated. We just need to wait if there's more, nobody knows. — JFG ^talk 23:45, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

That's the problem with trying to describe an law enforcement investigation partway through. R2 (bleep) 23:51, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

JFG - the first, shorter wording is cleaner ... but neither belongs in the LEAD of this article. Markbassett (talk) 13:05, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

• No to this. It's misleading wording. What does "charged with colluding with Russian interference efforts" even mean? It's not a specific crime, so all convictions will be for at least partially tangential things (eg. campaign finance violations, lying to investigators about matters relevant to the case, etc.) This construction essentially sets up something impossible and then words it in a way that makes it sound like its failure to happen is a form of exoneration. If we must reword it, I would prefer something like The ongoing investigation has led to guilty pleas by several Trump associates, including for lying to investigators, campaign finance violations, and tax fraud. That isn't much longer than the current version and is far more specific, allowing readers to decide for themselves whether that is "related" to Russia's efforts (or signaling to them that they need to skim down for more details) rather than either directly stating or indirectly implying something unsupported by the sources. Basically, if it's this controversial, we need to stop tiptoeing around what they were charged with and just summarize the most relevant or highest-profile cases in a few words. --Aquillion (talk) 20:46, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

  Aquillion, I think your suggested text solves this dispute. I think there should be a RFC on your suggested text as I think it would obtain a high(er) level of consensus--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 09:58, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I think that is a good suggestion.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:35, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for this fresh proposal, which helps address the concerns of many editors. We could still tighten it a bit more: The ongoing investigation has found several Trump associates guilty of lying to investigators, campaign finance violations, and tax fraud. Or The ongoing investigation has determined that several Trump associates had lied to investigators, made excessive campaign contributions, or committed tax fraud. I still believe we should state that none of the involved people was even accused of any wrongdoing regarding Russia, but I'm not sure how to formulate it. — JFG ^talk 00:03, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it is correct to say the investigation has found them guilty. An investigation cannot find or determine guilt. Charges were laid, and the accused pleaded guilty.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:08, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

How to solve this problem

Folks, this problem is not going to be solved by repeatedly reverting 4 words in and out of the article, or by voting "Yes" or "No" in an RfC. The problem will be solved when an editor or editors take the time and effort to actually read and understand the legitimate concerns of both sides and then come up with a creative wording that resolves those concerns. Don't focus on the four words, take a step back and look at the entire paragraph. Skimming the above, some concerns that jump out at me are:

• We should not (incorrectly) imply that the charges were for colluding with Russians to interfere with the election
• We should not (incorrectly) imply that the charges were completely unrelated to Russia.
• We should not go into too much detail about the investigation. (This article isn't about that, and we're in the lede section here.)

Who's going to be the one to come up with the solution? Donald Trump/sandbox is open for editing if a group of you want to work on something there without worrying about 1RR in the article itself. ~Awilley (talk) 05:19, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

(I moved the sandbox to Talk:Donald Trump/sandbox because you don't want an article titled "Donald Trump/sandbox") Yeah, considering one of the objectors, R2, does agree with just using the precise WaPo wording; and while that phrase would need to be reworded to avoid close paraphrasing, there's definitely a qualifier or sentence that would be more accurate or a better paraphrase than "unrelated to Russia's efforts" which is why I'm not going to be voting up or down in that RfC but rather going to think over that. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:53, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

In light of the sources and argument presented by MastCell, I've commented in favor of the RfC above (and so have others). At this point, there is no consensus for the four words, although that could change. The rest of the material is fine as far as I'm concerned.- MrX 🖋 12:46, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

☝️ This is the attitude I want you to change. It's easy for you to understand your concerns, but are you able to understand the concerns of others? ~Awilley (talk) 12:58, 21 December 2018 (UTC) Sorry, that was a bit too personal. ~Awilley (talk) 14:59, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

My attitude is fine, thank you. I have explained my reasoning in several sections and I have listened intently to other's comments which is why my view changed from opposing the four words, to accepting the four words, back to opposing the four words. If you want to suggest alternate wording for the paragraph (and recuse your involvement as an admin on this article), I am happy to listen to your suggestions as well. However, I don't entirely accept the premise in your bullet points above.- MrX 🖋 13:12, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Maria Butina pled guilty to infiltrating the NRA for the Russians. Papadopoulos made six attempts to set up meetings between Russians and the Trump campaign, lied about his contact during the Trump campaign with the Russia-connected professor Joseph, and was sentenced for lying to the FBI. Cohen pled guilty to making false statements to Congress regarding the dates of when President Donald Trump and the Trump Organization pursued a deal to build a Trump Tower in Moscow during the election. He also was found guilty of lying to the FBI. When one of these folks pleads guilty to lying to the FBI, do we know the full extent of the lies? I assume there is a reason for all the redactions in court documents. Can we say in Wikivoice that these charges are unrelated to Russian efforts? In my mind, we cannot say unrelated as that appears to be quite incorrect. We cannot say no charges of collusion were made, since, AFAIK, there is no crime named collusion. Since we’re in the lede, I suggest simply: The ongoing investigation has led to guilty pleas by several Trump associates for various criminal charges. We simply do not know all the details at this point and shouldn’t pretend we do. O3000 (talk) 13:14, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Or just remove the guilty pleas of other people from this BLP lede, and wait until Trump himself gets indicted. Much simpler. Again, mentioning criminal charges in the same breath as Russian interference gravely misleads readers, unless we mention that said charges exclude any accusation of helping Russia. As you correctly note, anything else is just guessing. — JFG ^talk 14:26, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

@JFG, But wouldn't that be ignoring the (equally legitimate) concern of MastCell that it is also misleading to readers to uncritically repeat Trump's line about the investigation being a "witch hunt" without mentioning the charges/guilty pleas? ~Awilley (talk) 15:10, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

That is a legitimate concern, which can be addressed separately. The insertion of politically motivated "witch hunt" was debated a long time ago and found consensus. It was added as a documentation of Trump's rebuttal of the accusations leveled at him, per WP:BLPPUBLIC. Basically, either we mention the allegations and the defense, or nothing. Given the prominence of the Special Counsel investigation in Trump's presidency so far, editors agreed that it had to be mentioned in the lede per WP:DUE WEIGHT. Naturally, editors also agreed that Trump's counter-stance to this investigation had to be mentioned as well. In today's debate, some editors, starting with MastCell, considered that guilty pleas of Trump associates should be mentioned in the lede, and others, starting with Politrukki, stated that mentioning such guilty pleas without specifying that nobody was accused of "colluding with Russia" would be highly misleading for readers. — JFG ^talk 17:41, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I think that's a good summary of the logical progression that led to where we are. Here's a different sort of proposal. Replace the "politically motivated witch hunt" sentence with something much more generic simply saying that Trump has denied any wrongdoing. Then we can get rid of the stuff about the charges against his associates. R2 (bleep) 17:44, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Interesting offer. I'm afraid it's not that simple, because this proposal would trade an agreement about one subject (how to describe Trump's reaction to the Mueller probe) against an agreement about another subject (whether Trump associates charged by Mueller should be mentioned in Trump's BLP lede). Any such "deal" would have to go through RfC. Personally I much prefer debating each question separately. — JFG ^talk 18:05, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

What do you think of that proposal, procedural issues aside? I'm not suggesting it as a sort of quid pro quo, more as something that might address everyone's valid concerns. R2 (bleep) 18:12, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't like the "trade" idea, but I am happy to give you my opinion on each of the subjects. The Mueller probe has largely enough weight to deserve a paragraph in the lede section. Trump's "witch hunt" defense has become so iconic that it is also eminently DUE. Regarding the guilty pleas, I'd be happy either to keep the current text (mention the charges and specify they do not imply any wrongdoing regarding the election), or to remove them altogether until and unless Trump himself gets indicted. After all, it's his biography, not Manafort's, Flynn's or Cohen's. — JFG ^talk 18:29, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for advancing the conversation, Awilley, and I agree all three of those points are valid. My inclination, when in doubt, is to follow the sources. In this case we're relying on a Washington Post source that says none of the guilty pleas were for collusion. While that isn't ideal, since it might be read imply that collusion is a crime, it's better than the current "related to" language, which isn't verified by any identified source. I'm open to further improvements. R2 (bleep) 17:16, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, it's crappy one way and crappy the other. This can easily be solved like this (bold to be changed, struck to be removed):

After Trump dismissed FBI Director James Comey, the Justice Department appointed Robert Mueller as Special Counsel to investigate possible links between the Trump campaign and the Russian government regarding election interference, and any matters arising from that. The ongoing investigation has led to guilty pleas by several Trump associates for criminal charges unrelated to Russia's efforts. Trump has repeatedly denied accusations of collusion and obstruction of justice, calling the investigation a politically motivated "witch hunt".

The finer points about who has pleaded guilty to what can be found in the main article for the investigation. This article is about Trump, rather than the investigation. Obviously this may change in the future. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:09, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I think the guilty pleas need to be mentioned. If they aren't, this argument will erupt again.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:27, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I would support Scjessey's proposal. The impulse to add other people's (mis)deeds into this BLP intro comes back every time one of them is in the news, and can be rejected until Trump is finally charged with something. — JFG ^talk 23:23, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that when Trump accuses Mueller of going on a witch hunt, he's not just professing his innocence, he's also accusing Mueller of wrongdoing. And that requires balanced coverage. R2 (bleep) 23:32, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Also, does Comey have to be mentioned here? It's unexplained what the connection is.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:26, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

I cannot support removing the convictions of Trump's closest associates. It's a significant point about his life leading up to and including his presidency.- MrX 🖋 13:18, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

@MrX: Thus far, these close associates have only plead guilty to crimes not related to Trump specifically (Cohen's plea does, but that's with the SDNY); therefore, to include them in this biography would seem to be a case of guilt by association, which doesn't sit well with me. We had the same kind of issue at Barack Obama, where hordes of deplorables wanted to shoehorn people like Bill Ayers and Tony Rezko into the article to make Obama look bad. If it turns out that any of them plead guilty to charges that are related directly to Trump, then obviously my position would change. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:12, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

The text in question doesn't say that Trump committed a crime, but he surrounded himself with close associates who did, which is why it's relevant to his bio. Sources establish the associations very prominently, and so should we.- MrX 🖋 19:34, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Thus far, these close associates have only plead guilty to crimes not related to Trump specifically This is absolutely not true. These crimes were no less related to Trump than any other actions taken by his administration. On top of that, they are part of a well documented culture of lies that starts at the top. It's true that these associates' crimes might not have directly involved Trump himself (in fact, we can't even say that for sure), but that doesn't mean they're not related to him. R2 (bleep) 20:30, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ahrtoodeetoo: This is a BLP. We don't know any of the crimes of these people are related to Trump, so how can we even think of mentioning them here? Again, this is guilt by association, and that just isn't the way things should be done on Wikipedia. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:25, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

(sidenote: Scjessey mentioned did not have Obama article have associates Ayers or Rezko, similarly not associates of Hillary, or Bush, or Reagan.... it’s just OFFTOPIC and seems a POV distortion. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:20, 6 January 2019 (UTC))

User:Awilley - edit war bad, which is why by WP:ONUS it is wrong procedure to have ANY version before TALK consensus. Norm is to revert such out, particularly when it is in LEAD and lacks body content and is in (this) contentious article, so can we please stop the Goose chase and delete until whether and what discussions are done ? (I am also puzzled by the too-eager insert and why re-edits instead of just delete). Markbassett (talk) 13:12, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Protection

I've temporarily protected the article due to the continued reverting. The version I protected was arbitrary, determined by the time that I saw the edit war was continuing, and is not an endorsement of that particular revision. (There is, in fact, no status quo for that sentence, and so far no clear consensus either way on the talk page.) This is exactly the type of impasse that the BRD Cycle is supposed to help help break, and "Enforced BRD" is the name of the rule at the top of the page. Yet the last actual change to the sentence was 2 days ago; since then it's just been straight up reverts.

I am happy to unprotect the article as soon as I see someone willing to make a Bold edit that reasonably addresses some concern of both sides, or when some sort of consensus starts to emerge on the talk page. ~Awilley (talk) 14:43, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Awilley, can you please add an appropriate tag to flag this dispute and show that your choice of version is not an endorsement of it? R2 (bleep) 18:52, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean. The PP template is already on the article. ~Awilley (talk) 18:58, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I mean an inline tag such as {{disputed-inline}} or {{pov-inline}}. R2 (bleep) 20:08, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I've unprotected the article now, but I don't recommend you adding the tag yourself, as it actually does little toward further resolving the dispute. It mostly just annoys people. ~Awilley (talk) 15:45, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Awilley - I am going to return that para to the (months) long-standing consensus of two lines, reverting out the last several days of non-consensus versions on an additional line. That may not hold, but I will try as proper process and see how it goes. WP:ONUS and norm is to get consensus before inserting material into lead, particularly for contentious articles, and past practice seems to revert out edits to lead especially per WP:LEAD if done before body text has been added to suit such an edit. (Really seems like a ‘just follow the process’ here — any other practice for LEAD seems asking for edit wars and keeping edit wars going contrary to even WP:BRD. A 48 hour waiting period on inserting news items would also be good, but that’s just my personal thinking.) That associates are convicted on things other than the Russian election interference is a simple observation, and when consensus occurs on what words (if any) to use to convey that in BLP lead ... please let us do it then and not before. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:23, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

... that lasted about 55 minutes before undone by Calton with note “That was sudden”. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 08:21, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

It's important that we keep the lead updated, after all we are an online encyclopedia. You seem to be one of the very few editors who simply don't like this particular information in the lead.- MrX 🖋 13:31, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

ha... ‘very few’ kind of obviously disproven by the length of arguing above; in any case still failing WP:ONUS of supposed to get consensus on whether to include and what wording BEFORE just jamming stuff into lead of a prominent and contentious article and so kicking it into edit wars. If WP does not follow the guidance to simply revert out... well, here we are and I await someone posting a WP policy or guide to do it this way other than abusing WP:IAR. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:06, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Alcohol

The article asserts in WP's voice that Trump does not consume alcohol. It would be more appropriate to say he claims to not consume alcohol. Herbxue (talk) 07:40, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

No, I disagree because it is not a disputed claim. By adding the term ‘claims’ then implies Trump is lying or that some reliable sources cast doubt on the claim.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 07:49, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

The obvious answer is to use 'say' instead of 'claim', which is more neutral and allows readers to decide for themselves whether Trump's word is good. --Aquillion (talk) 20:51, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Related October discussion: Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 92#Alcohol. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:56, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

We'd only change that sentence if you can find reliable sources that dispute Trump's statement that he doesn't drink alcohol. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:19, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Trump has stated that he enjoys wine at communion (and is not so explicit that it's the only occasion). I added the info to the article in this edit, but it's since been removed... not sure why. UpdateNerd (talk) 10:24, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Apparently you haven't bothered to read the October discussion, linked above. Here is what I take from it. 1. It got adequate participation. 2. It included consideration of the wine thing. 3. It was closed as consensus for the current language. 4. That close was not challenged. 5. No factors relevant to that sentence have changed significantly since October. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:07, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

My suggested solution for such a contradiction would be to include a note of his exception for wine at communion in a footnote, next to the challenged prose. That way, both views are presented, and the reader can decide. UpdateNerd (talk) 13:04, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Oppose as WP:UNDUE hyper-literal hair-splitting, even as a footnote. One ceremonial sip of wine (generally a smaller sip than one would take at, say, dinner) per week, assuming he in fact takes Communion weekly, does not constitute "drink[ing] alcohol" by any reasonable interpretation. We are not making the precise statement that no C
₂H
₅OH molecule ever enters Trump's body. And I'm not aware of any sources that have called him out as lying about his non-drinking. I don't find that among Kessler's 7,546. Apparently sources don't think it's a significant distinction. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:33, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

I would at least suggest we rephrase it to his stating he doesn't drink alcohol, since we're going by his word, and he has suggested otherwise with that communion being "about the only time" wording. Authoritatively stating as an absolute something that can easily be disproven by a single quotation isn't good practice or encyclopedic. UpdateNerd (talk) 06:57, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

No, this is from many cites over decades (not from his statements) which may have made a minor flaw or press exaggeration but as the RS solid view got said in Wiki as factual. This ‘drink’ refers to social drinking so the substance of the personal quirk is not changed by a communion sip or a sip at U.N. toast. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:48, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

His statements are relevant when they contradict the other sources. A sip of alcohol is still drinking in the literal sense, even if not in the colloquial sense of "I'm going out drinking with my mates." UpdateNerd (talk) 15:41, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I've never really understood why Trump's consumption (or lack thereof) is noteworthy enough for inclusion in the first place, but adding this additional detail seems like an even bigger waste of megabytes. I mean, he probably gets more alcohol from his morning swill of Listerine than the occasional sip at a religious thing. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:29, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Meh. I've seen him say he only occasionally sips a little wine. But, so what? And, vintage 1998 Listerine is my favorite. O3000 (talk) 14:35, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Megabytes? More like bytes. We should strive to be precise and reflect all the sources, not worry about adding to a text file which is collectively smaller than a JPG. UpdateNerd (talk) 07:10, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

I did not intend "megabytes" to be taken literally. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:14, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Abstinence is unusual in a politician/business person, and is mentioned widely by Reliable Sources, and doesn't seem to have been challenged by anyone, so it should be mentioned. BTW if he is really a Presbyterian as he claims, he wouldn't get wine at communion anyhow. Presbyterians mostly uses bread and grape juice (referred to as "the cup") at communion. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:32, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, and the cup is not much bigger than your thumb nail.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:46, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

But he does say wine in his own words. UpdateNerd (talk) 09:10, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

• No in-text attribution. We don't cast doubt on verifiable facts. R2 (bleep) 16:11, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

The text says he "doesn't drink alcohol", rather than he "doesn't consume". This means medicinal use is really irrelevant. This wording was chosen instead of "never drinks". I think in a colloquial sense this is OK. Trump might go to occasionally communion in churches where wine is used. He has said that he does, and there's really no reason to doubt him, but there's really no reason to change the wording. I think the topic is notable for a brief mention, because it says something about his personality.--Jack Upland (talk) 17:54, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

What medicinal use? Is there such a thing? The wording isn't far off, but ironically it comes one paragraph after saying that he takes Holy Communion 'as often as possible'. Hmm... UpdateNerd (talk) 15:41, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I was referring to Listerine (mentioned above) and other medicinal products that contain alcohol. However, as I said, the statement is not that Trump doesn't consume alcohol, despite editors here repeatedly saying that. "Alcohol" here really means alcoholic beverages. That's the colloquial understanding of the words. We are not talking about consumption of ethanol as such. Hence, I think taking communion wine would not be considered "drinking alcohol" in ordinary life. No man offers to take a woman out for a drink and takes her to communion.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:57, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

• Generally-speaking, it's normal to use in-text attribution when people make claims about themselves, especially when sources report on it with that attribution. I would obviously go for the neutral "Trump says" rather than run afoul of WP:CLAIM, but the "verifiable fact" here is that Trump says he doesn't consume alcohol. --Aquillion (talk) 20:51, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

I would oppose adding "he says" or any similar hint that we doubt it or it might not be factual. After all, nowadays everything he says gets fact-checked, because he habitually says things that are not true. I find it significant that no fact-checker has found it necessary to look into this, because literally no-one has come forward to challenge it. It is not the least bit controversial. This is a guy who has been in the public eye all his life and has many enemies, and yet no one has accused him of being a secret drinker. No one has said they have seen him take a drink even once. He gets accused of all kinds of thing, but not of lying about this. I believe it to be a simple statement of fact. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:00, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I take your point. With personal information we tend to take the person's word for it. However, the next sentence says that "he says" he doesn't smoke cigarettes or illegal drugs. Why? Couldn't we have a compromise wording: "Trump says he does not drink alcohol because of his elder brother's chronic alcoholism and early death"?--Jack Upland (talk) 00:21, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Strongly agree. Using a qualifier like "He states" makes more sense for the part about drinking since there are some technical contradictions e.g. communion; it feels out of place when talking about cigarettes, etc., which haven't contradicted by anyone. UpdateNerd (talk) 09:08, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I should have added that my proposed wording does not cast doubt on his non-drinking, but merely repeats his statement about its rationale.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:33, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Removal of Syria/ISIS paragraph

this edit was removed because it contains "Way too much detail and editorializing"

1) it contains zero editorializing, and I can provide numerous additional RSs to show that, but what I already provided is perfectly adequate.

2) Trump's decision was perhaps a pivotal, watershed event that has caused many of his supporters to question his judgment. The decision warrants a detailed paragraph of its own.

Everything in the edit is substantiated as both factual and consequential across many RSs. I recommend the edit be restored. soibangla (talk) 23:07, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

The event was already mentioned a few lines above. See my shorter rewording, keeping key points and all sources. — JFG ^talk 23:40, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I find that language deficient because:

1) the NYT reported “Trump’s decision to pull out of Syria...was opposed by virtually every high-level administration official,” which is corroborated by multiple RSs

2) Rand Paul was among the “very few” who voiced support, making him effectively an outlier; the decision was more universally opposed than any other decision by anyone in recent memory

3) the decision contradicted the official American policy that had been stated to allies and the public during the days leading up to the decision

4) it does not note that Trump is reconsidering it after meeting with Graham

Also, please would you indicate what part of my edit contained “editorializing?” soibangla (talk) 18:54, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

The level of detail you want to include is undue for Trump's bio, a better fit for Foreign policy of the Trump administration. Re:editorializing, there were several subjective qualifiers ("abruptly announced", "very few", "vocally opposing", "particularly vocal"), and dramatic verbs ("overruling", "vanquished", "cede control" , "precipitated"). We should write as neutrally as possible. — JFG ^talk 04:35, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

All those qualifiers were entirely consistent with extensive reportage across multiple reliable sources.soibangla (talk) 18:11, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Just because something is reliably sourced doesn't mean it is not editorializing. עם ישראל חי (talk) 18:17, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

It was a momentous and consequential decision and reliable sources accurately reported it as such, as did I.soibangla (talk) 18:21, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Mention of Queens in the infobox

Forgive me for my lack of understanding but I'm unsure if boroughs or city districts are supposed to be mentioned in the infobox. I always thought it was just the city that is supposed to be mentioned. GoAnimateFan199Pro (talk) 06:39, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

This is due to a recent discussion. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:31, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Thousands of false and misleading statements

This ("He continued to make thousands of false or misleading claims during his presidency.") was removed from the lead as unsourced and OR. It's not. The article contains an entire section, include a citation to the fact that Trump has made more than 7600 false and misleading claims,[15] and numerous supporting citations. We even have a dedicated article!

As it reads now, the lead is very misleading. It tell readers that he stopped lying after the campaign. That glaring omission needs to be corrected. - MrX 🖋 12:19, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

How many times in the lead do we need to call him a liar? It is getting ridiculous at this point. PackMecEng (talk) 14:19, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Once. But we need to do it correctly. He didn't stop lying after he was elected. He actually increased the number of lies substantially. - MrX 🖋 14:51, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

If once then we are already covered by "many of his public statements were controversial or false". PackMecEng (talk) 15:01, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Trump is lying more and his lies are increasingly bold.[16][17][18][19] It is not a phenomenon that exists in the past. It's not an occasional. It's not about his statements being controversial. The current text is misleading.- MrX 🖋 15:10, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes you got me being deliberately obtuse.... Get out of here with that BS, you know better. Anyhow if you think the current text is misleading perhaps updating it instead of rambling over and over about lies would be a better option as I mentioned above. It only needs to be mentioned once. Also since the current text enjoys strong strong consensus if you think it is misleading and wrong then throw up an RFC to override that consensus for your POV. PackMecEng (talk) 15:19, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Trump's torrent of false statement is not my POV. - MrX 🖋 16:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Nope no kidding, you misunderstand the context of POV here. The POV I was clearly referring to was that it needed to be in the lead the way you put it. Your point of view was that the sentence should be in the lead. PackMecEng (talk) 16:52, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Please knock it off, you two. Discuss the content, not other editors. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:03, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Fine mom! PackMecEng (talk) 16:26, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Falsehoods, revisited?

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

---

User:MrX raises an interesting question, above. I almost hate to raise this issue again, because we have discussed it so often and have repeatedly reaffirmed consensus for our current approach, but it may be worth taking another look. Currently we have this in the third paragraph, which is the “campaign and election” section of the lead: His campaign received extensive free media coverage; many of his public statements were controversial or false. But I agree with MrX that it is misleading to imply that this was only true during the campaign. Let’s have a discussion - just a general discussion, not yet an RfC - about whether to change this, and to what. Let’s discuss whether to move the above sentence to later in the paragraph, after we describe his election. We could put it after His election and policies have sparked numerous protests. and before Many of his comments and actions have been perceived as racially charged or racist.. Let’s also discuss the wording; I think we should drop “free media coverage”, which isn’t that important, and focus on the “falsehood” aspect. And we should debate whether to include the conclusion that his falsehoods are unprecedented/a record (to get past the “all politicians lie” objection). If we want we could include a reference to support "record number".

Sources

I suggest we make this a preliminary discussion to get the sense of the community. If after discussion we find there is local agreement to change it, we can then proceed to an RfC. And of course we should not make any changes to the article now - not until it is clear through RfC that we have a new consensus. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:35, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately I created the RfC before I saw this. I would suggest that if anyone favors a particular phrasing, that they create a subsection within the RfC to measure support.- MrX 🖋 17:08, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Move the sentence out of the “campaign” area?

Possible wording?

Here are some possible wordings, feel free to add more :

• Many of his public statements have been misleading or false.
• Many of his public statements, both during the campaign and during his presidency, have been misleading or false.
• A record number of his public statements, both during the campaign and during his presidency, have been misleading or false.

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

Removal of early actions

Pinging Power~enwiki, regarding [20], while I'm not opposed to the removal of the early actions section, this does leave us in a position where the Gorsuch nomination is in the lead but not the body. Also I think the other content should be integrated in various relevant places in the Presidency section wherever not redundant. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:27, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I restored the section. It is well sourced and as Galobtter points out it is info not found in the rest of the article. I would be fine with integrating the info into other sections, just not blanking well sourced and notable info while making the top of the section look like crap. PackMecEng (talk) 14:17, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Something needs to be done; it's excessive at this point, and dates from when we only had one week of Presidency material to include in that section. As a separate note, Kavanaugh is not mentioned in the body at all; there probably should be a section on "Judicial appointments", possibly after "Cabinet". power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Should the lead be updated to reflect that Trump has continued to make false or misleading statements throughout his campaign and presidency?

Should the lead be updated to reflect that Trump has continued to make false or misleading statements throughout his campaign and presidency? - MrX 🖋 17:06, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Current Text

His campaign received extensive free media coverage; many of his public statements were controversial or false.

Proposed Text

During his campaign and as president, Trump made a record number of false or misleading statements., exceeding 7,500 by the end of his second year in office.

Struck last portion of the proposed text based on near-unanimous feedback.- MrX 🖋 18:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Previous discussions

• September 12, 2016
• February 3, 2017
• April 7, 2017
• July 23, 2018

- MrX 🖋 17:06, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Survey: False/misleading

• Support. The shocking number of brazen falsehoods, many of which have been repeated dozens of times, are a defining feature of his persona, campaign and presidency. The current text fails to fully reflect this. The proposed text is an improvement. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:13, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
• I don't like "exceeding 7,500 by the end of his second year in office." because that is one organization's number and hardly the "one true number" that we can definitely state without attribution. Another fact checking organization may say he made more than 3900 falsehoods etc. But I support

  His campaign received extensive free media coverage. A record number of his public statements, both during his campaign and presidency, have been misleading or false.

  Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:17, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

  We can probably drop the "free media coverage" bit too; has importance but is honestly more relevant to articles on the media than Trump. Or we can make it His campaign received extensive free media coverage, in part due to his controversial statements but considering a large portion of his controversial statements relate to race, which we have a sentence on, seems unnecessary. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:24, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

  Scratch that somewhat, just dropping the last bit, for During his campaign and as president, Trump made a record number of false or misleading statements. is pretty good. (there is a slight grammar issue that I'll quibble over later) Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:30, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

• I am not a fan of the 7,500 part either, without the ", exceeding 7,500 by the end of his second year in office" part I support it as an improvement. PackMecEng (talk) 17:19, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support some addition – All politicians lie during campaigns; so the current text doesn’t say anything specific to Trump. OTOH, the sheer volume of false or misleading statements during his presidency is a constant topic of RS and clearly DUE. My only concern is the number 7,500 which comes from one source. Attributing the number would solve that problem, but might suggest only one source exists for the high volume. It is attributed in the body which might be enough. Perhaps “exceeding, by one count, 7,500 by the end of his second year in office”. O3000 (talk) 17:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
• Partial support - I am not a fan of the proposed text. I would prefer to see something like this: Trump has made a record number of false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency. The specifics of his mendacity (nature and number of lies) should be left to the body of the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:48, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
• Qualified support I now Support the current version with the "7,500" phrase struck out. I support Galobter's version, "During his campaign and as president, Trump made a record number of false or misleading statements." Leave out the 7,500 which is unnecessary detail and is best left to the text, where it can be updated as needed. I also think, as I said in the above section (where I was hoping to postpone a formal RfC until we had reached some kind of local consensus about exactly what to propose; now we will have to keep changing it which is unfortunate in an RfC), that it should be moved from its current position in the paragraph to become the next-to-the-last sentence. Also, we may want to include a reference to support "record number". -- MelanieN (talk) 17:55, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

  @MelanieN: We're not necessarily committed to using RfC at this point. If this is sufficiently "unfortunate", we have the option of simply removing the {{rfc}} template before it goes too much further. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - The problem is, there's no way to actually know if this statement is true. The amount of fact-checking done on presidents today is obviously a little more stringent than it was in, say, the 1820's. Much of how "factual" or honest/dishonest a statement is, varies with cultures and time. You can't really make a fair and direct comparison between the "truthfulness" of Trump's statements and John Quincy Adam's; thus, a "record number" seems like a very recentist viewpoint. NickCT (talk) 18:23, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

One source says "unprecedented for a modern presidential candidate" = Scope of Trump's falsehoods unprecedented for a modern presidential candidate. Would you be OK with something like that? -- MelanieN (talk) 19:06, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

@MelanieN: - Yes. I think I would be. But I'd like to see the exact proposed wording. NickCT (talk) 19:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

User:MelanieN I think 7500 is less problematic ... that is at least factually pointing to someone’s count. There is no comparable count numbers done before though or the current level of scrutiny/ambush, so “unprecedented” comes off as just bloviating a tautology (since we never counted before, any result is unprecedented) and “modern candidates” seems unsuitable for the thread intent of going beyond the election and a bit unclear what “modern” is. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:45, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

It would be similar to what is done with popularity and approval reports: any comparison has to include the phrase "in the era of modern polling" (basically since the 1930s) because we have no way to judge the popularity of politicians before that time. Modern, formal fact checking of politicians began with the launch of FactCheck.org in 2003, although it had earlier roots with the "Ad Police" in the 1990s. (Of course Snopes predates them both, but Snopes evaluates a different type of material.) -- MelanieN (talk) 16:18, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

That isn't really true because none of these fact checkers have fact checked every statement uttered by Bush and Obama to compare it to Trump where they do fact check his every statement. עם ישראל חי (talk) 16:39, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, Bush and Obama WERE fact-checked. The era of formal fact-checking began with the launch of FactCheck.org in 2003. Other politicians during the past 16 years have also been subject to formal fact-checking. I agree that's a small sample compared to the nation's 200-year history, but it's not nothing. As for the number of statements that got evaluated for each president - there had to be some suspicion that a statement might not be true, for it to be fact-checked. They don't fact-check Trump when he says "today is Tuesday" or "I spoke with Putin" or "I signed this bill". They do fact-check him when he says things that are dubious like "we have already started building The Wall." -- MelanieN (talk) 17:17, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

While I agree with you MelanieN that Bush and Obama were probably as stringently fact-checked as Trump, I also agree with עם ישראל חי in the sense that we don't really know what proportion of their comments were actually fact checked.

As I alluded to above, the problem with making any quantitative assertions about "truthfulness" (e.g. "most lies", "biggest liar", etc) is that truthfulness is ultimately a subjective measure for which there is no agreed upon scale or yardstick.

I think it's best to just stick to what we know is true, which is that a lot of sources has been critical of the "truthfulness" issue. NickCT (talk) 18:32, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Relative superlatives "most", "worst" "unprecedented" are just words. I'd prefer a steady stream of harmless fibs than giant lies about private servers, IRS targeting and DOJ subterfuge.--MONGO (talk) 19:20, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

  Yeah, but what we would prefer is irrelevant. The body of reliable sources agrees about as much as they could agree on anything: the phenomenon is unprecedented. They say that's significant, so it's significant. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:23, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Your statement does not nullify my position. Wikipedia is NOTNEWS BTW.--MONGO (talk) 19:35, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Your statement does not nullify my position. Sadly, I think you're right. Wikipedia is NOTNEWS BTW. In that case perhaps you can explain this edit, in which you added far more content on the strength of far less RS coverage. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
      • MONGO, perhaps you can clarify your contribution to this discussion. It's difficult to interpret it as anything other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT and Whataboutism.- MrX 🖋 20:21, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
        • I oppose adding further rhetoric to the matter. Since we sadly must rely on the NEWS as I did in the edit Mandruss points out, in my effort in June I tried to add a neutral treatise based on a source I thought most editors here would find suitable (in other words, not FoxNews). I don't like having to rely on NEWS but I do recognize we must since this article is mostly recentism issues, especially the issues of greatest concern. Be that as it might, I see no reason to expand wording but of course since this is the encyclopedia anyone (even those disinterested/incapable/too busy using the website for partisan purposes other than for substantive higher level work) can edit, we can be sure the body of the article will go into exhaustive details about this matter, and least that is more acceptable than turning the intro into a full court press attempt to malign this person.--MONGO (talk) 03:07, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
          • Thank you for clarifying that you consider widely-reported facts to be rhetoric; you consider things that have continued from 2015 to 2019 to be recent; you think this article is controlled by partisans who don't otherwise contribute to building the encyclopedia; and you object to content critical of Trump, in the lead.- MrX 🖋 13:21, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support, and I suggest adopting the language I added some months ago, for which an editor hauled me before a tribunal and requested I be sentenced to death. heh soibangla (talk) 19:30, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

You going to share that language with us? Or should we just adopt it sight unseen? (Glad to hear you survived your inquisition.) 0;-D -- MelanieN (talk) 19:46, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

This language that was removed shows 1) it's a lifelong phenomenon; 2) it was well-known early in his candidacy; 3) it has continued well into his presidency, with figures showing the magnitude (5000) and frequency (125 in two hours, which we could update with more recent data, such as WaPo's 15 per day during 2018)

Trump has been known throughout his adult life to promote himself with hyperbole and falsehoods. Within six months of announcing his presidential candidacy, FactCheck.org declared him the "King of Whoppers," stating, "In the 12 years of FactCheck.org's existence, we've never seen his match." By the 20th month of his presidency, Washington Post fact checkers counted 5,000 instances of his false or misleading statements — including 125 during a single two-hour period.

soibangla (talk) 22:47, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I actually like that. For the article text, of course, not the lead. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:04, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support with "unprecedented". It's an improvement, but it doesn't sit well with me because the emphasis is wrong. The sheer number of falsehoods isn't that important; what's important is that dishonesty has been a hallmark of Trump's campaign and presidency and he seems to have little or no care for the truth. Surely we have sources that hit closer to the mark? R2 (bleep) 23:36, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
• Of course the data about Trump should be in the article. This is laughable. Let's remove everything bad about him and add only vague, general things so it seems like he in any way fulfilled his responsibilities and duties as a president, which every reliable source confirms he didn't. PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 03:17, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

If this is in response to my comment, please know that I support including stuff in this article about the number of falsehoods. We're talking about the lead here, which by the relevant guideline very much should include vague, general things since it's supposed to be a summary, not a collection of datapoints. R2 (bleep) 18:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - Don’t make an OR mixture. Keep it clean and simple, don’t mix two items. The campaign coverage is RS, anything else should be a separate line if significant enough to suit LEAD. Admixture with later and separate stories to make combined theories is OR, and there seems a soapboxing TALK to underline that. It seems he is basically the same as during the campaign, but that comparison just seems not a big news item among other choices. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:33, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support with "unprecedented". Support the change in principle but "a record number of" is wp:weasel -- when compared to other presidents? any person? etc. "Unprecedented" highlights how unusual Trump is in this regard, without saying "mostest". K.e.coffman (talk) 07:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Unprecedented is just as weasel, if not more so actually. PackMecEng (talk) 14:14, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

@PackMecEng: How so? The word is sourced, so what's the problem? How would you attempt to describe Trump's astonishing level of mendacity in a way that is palatable? -- Scjessey (talk) 14:18, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I would not use any weasel qualifiers as I mentioned in my vote above. The purpose of my comment here is if "a record number" is weasel then so is unprecedented. It is poor logic is all. Both are very well sourced to dozens of places heck we could probably source "omg mostest" but they are all still kind of weasel. Best to just leave it to the body to describe the extent of it all. PackMecEng (talk) 14:21, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Per above, support addition (with "record" or a similar word), but change "false or misleading" to "inaccurate". We have to cover his false/inaccurate statements, mildly inaccurate ones, distorted ones, unsubstantiated ones, but not "misleading" ones as that is POV. When he says a true thing that his opponents dislike, they call it "misleading" (source: every true thing he's ever said). wumbolo ^^^ 12:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

@Wumbolo: May I ask what sources you are reading that dispute that Trump has made numerous misleading claims? "Inaccurate" would not be an appropriate word to use as it would wrongly imply that Trump only occasionally makes minor mistakes.- MrX 🖋 13:09, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

May I ask what sources you have used that more than a couple of his false claims are major? wumbolo ^^^ 13:38, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

No, because I never claimed "more than a couple of his false claims are major". My assertion is that Trump made a record (or unprecedented) number of false or misleading statements.

• "When 2018 began, the president had made 1,989 false and misleading claims,... By the end of the year, Trump had accumulated more than 7,600 untruths during his presidency — averaging more than 15 erroneous claims a day during 2018, almost triple the rate from the year before."
• "Should Donald Trump’s advisers share the blame for his unprecedented record of untruths—or is the President alone accountable?"
• "...Trump hit a(nother) milestone: He topped 3,000 untrue or misleading statements in 466 days in office."
• "He has misleadingly said over 90 times that his promised wall along the southern border is being built (construction has not begun on any new section)."- MrX 🖋 13:56, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Extended discussion: False/misleading

MrX, you suggested above that if anyone prefers a different wording, they create a subsection to this RfC. I would suggest instead that you follow the overwhelming opinion here, and strike the phrase about the number of falsehoods from your proposed sentence. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:00, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

OK, but echoing Objective3000's comment, I do think we need to express the magnitude of the falsehoods. I had previously written: "He continued to make thousands of false or misleading claims during his presidency.". Maybe there's a way to say "record breaking" and "thousands" in a couple of words.- MrX 🖋 18:07, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Modified Scjessey: Trump has made a record thousands of false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

That sounds pretty good to me.- MrX 🖋 18:24, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Works for me. O3000 (talk) 18:28, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

No. "a record thousands" is unclear and awkward. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:29, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Disagree, as it's structurally identical to Lotteries paid out a record $340 million in 2018. which seems quite natural. We're simply replacing a precise number with "thousands of". Proposed improvement? ―Mandruss ☎ 18:32, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Leave out "thousands" or any other number; among other problems, the counts include a separate tally for each time a particular false statement is repeated. Keep as currently proposed - simply "a record number" (thank you for the strikeout, MrX). -- MelanieN (talk) 18:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC) P.S. Have you ever seen a lottery say "we paid out a record millions of dollars"? Or an athlete described as "he threw a record dozens of interceptions"? -- MelanieN (talk) 18:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Now that I review the source[21] cited in the main article from which I borrowed "record", I'm not sure it's actually verifiable. I'm looking into this further...- MrX 🖋 18:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

MrX, thanks for pinging me. I wish I could remember what sources in the body justified that wording, but I can't. It certainly summarizes the conclusions of multiple fact checkers, who declare they have never seen a politician so dishonest. They never seen anyone like him. "Unprecedented" is certainly a word which can be used. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:48, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

The reporter who exposed Trump’s record-breaking lying ahead of midterms -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:14, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

the counts include a separate tally for each time a particular false statement is repeated, as they should. Repeating a falsehood is worse than stating it once. Repeating it twice is worse than repeating it once. And so on. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

If "record" demands a number, how about "unprecedented" instead? There's plenty of sourcing for that. Examples:

Sources

-- MelanieN (talk) 19:01, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Trump has made an unprecedented thousands of false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency. ? Fine with me. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Unprecedented sounds like WP:PUFFERY, while certainly supported by RS it does not fit. PackMecEng (talk) 19:28, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

where is the research to back up unprecedented or record except as the opinion of these writers do they have a total for all other presidents. עם ישראל חי (talk) 19:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Scroll up. It was added by MelanieN 40 minute before you posted you question.- MrX 🖋 19:56, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Doesn't answer my question have they looked at every utterance by previous presidents to see who lied more. So unless someone actually fact checks every statement by previous presidents words like record or unprecedented are just opinions and don't belong here. עם ישראל חי (talk) 20:23, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

That's not our concern, as long as we use reliable sources that have a solid reputation for fact checking, which we do. - MrX 🖋 20:27, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Unprecedented is OK, but a bit vague. I favor "thousands" or "nearly ten thousand", which gives readers a sense of how unprecedented this president's fibbing really is.- MrX 🖋 20:00, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

User:AmYisroelChai well yes it is puffery. Since it’s the first time anyone counted, obviously it’s a record or unprecedented. But it’s puffery by RS writers not by WP editors so it’s able to be included if they actually used that word, it suits WEIGHT, and is not OFFTOPIC of BLP. Many would obviously say bigger liars / lies were done in the past, see Bill Clinton, Reagan, LBJ, Nixon ... but that wasn’t reported back when via oddball opinion counting. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:59, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

It's not QUITE the first time anyone counted. George W. Bush and Barack Obama were also fact-checked, as were other politicians since around 2003. I agree that's a pretty small sample for formal fact-checking; previous presidents were only called out for occasional whoppers, not analyzed for everything they said. What makes Trump unique is that he says, and repeats over and over, so many quasi-factual claims that are simply not true in the real world. If there were presidents before him who did that, they precede living memory. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:50, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

if every utterance by previous presidents aren't fact checked then that statement is just an opinion. עם ישראל חי (talk) 17:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I’ve always thought the word unprecedented is used an unprecedented number of times. I’m OK with it here, but also prefer thousands, not only because the number is so high, but because it has been measured. Part of the reason the number of misstatements is so high is that no previous president has tweeted a dozen times a day. But, both volume and percentage matter, and both have been mentioned in RS, qualitatively in the case of percentage. O3000 (talk) 20:03, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

On reflection, I support Mandruss' proposal as a workable compromise: (Trump has made an unprecedented thousands of false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency.). - MrX 🖋 20:17, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Yuck. "An unprecedented thousands of" sounds like absolutely horrible English. I can just about stomach "an unprecedented number of" (assuming this is supported by sources). Perhaps this would be better:

During his campaign and presidency, fact checkers have noted Trump has made thousands of false or misleading statements.

-- Scjessey (talk) 22:25, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Agree that “unprecedented thousands” is awkward. “Thousands” alone is an understatement. But, I have no problem with an understatement in the lede fleshed out in the body (even though casual readers never get that far). O3000 (talk) 23:01, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Oppose the omission of the essential point per RS, which is that it's unprecedented, not that it's thousands. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:08, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

"Unprecendented" means without precedent; which is basically the same as "record".--Jack Upland (talk) 07:11, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

There seems to be some agreement to use "unprecedented" without any numerical reference. I can go along with that. I don't think we should include "fact checkers have noted" though. Trump's epic lying has been noted by many more people than just fact checkers. WP:YESPOV applies.- MrX 🖋 12:59, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Fine. How about this?

During his campaign and presidency, fact checkers have noted Trump has made an unprecedented number of false or misleading statements.

-- Scjessey (talk) 13:50, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Same complaint: I don't think we should include "fact checkers have noted" though. Trump's epic lying has been noted by many more people than just fact checkers. WP:YESPOV applies.- MrX 🖋 15:07, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

While I'd be delighted to remove that (During his campaign and presidency, Trump has made an unprecedented number of false or misleading statements.), I thought it would make it easier to attract support if we included it. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:10, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I like this version the best. No awkwardness like "unprecedented thousands" and no need to hedge it with "fact checkers said". We might consider adding a reference, a good strong one, since otherwise we will have people here at talk saying "who says?", five times a week for the duration of his presidency. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:01, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with MelanieN.- MrX 🖋 16:29, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Ok as to content. Oppose a citation:

1. This article has so far managed to remain citation-free in the lead. I like that. If the statement isn't unambiguously supported by sourced content in the body, that can be and should be corrected.

2. A citation wouldn't prevent people from insisting we need attribution, five times a week for the duration of his presidency. Alternatively,

3. I haven't seen a continuous stream of people saying "who says?" many of his public statements were controversial or false—content that has stood unchanged for a long time. Actually I haven't seen enough to recall any. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:49, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

OK, those are good points. I am striking the suggestion of a citation. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:28, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposed alternate wording

After extensive discussion above the following wording was proposed by Scjessey and immediately agreed-to by three other people, so I am posting it here as a proposed wording. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:27, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

• ALT1: During his campaign and presidency, Trump has made an unprecedented number of false or misleading statements.
• Support per discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:38, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose use of unprecedented. עם ישראל חי (talk) 18:10, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Many RS use this wording, and, although it doesn't really say just how unprecented (nearly every sentence contains some sort of falsehoood or misleading element), it's still useful content. His biographers and others who really know him say he lies with every breath, lies reflexively, and has no regard for truth. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:13, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose We do not need weasel words or qualifiers in the lead for this. That info can be found in the body where it belongs. PackMecEng (talk) 18:23, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

• Reliably-sourced wording is not weasel wording. That refers to editors adding such words. Since you object, please suggest better wording. "Unprecendented" isn't even opinion, but is how fact checkers summarize the actual statistics, IOW this is an evidence-based description of research findings. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:28, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose This article is a BLP, not limited to his campaign and presidency. As shown in veracity, his looseness with truth dates back decades. It is a core defining characteristic of the man and the lede must reflect that with a full paragraph of at least two sentences containing some specificity. Anything less is a capitulation to a small number of partisans who have fought tooth and nail to prevent this truth from being acknowledged, evidently in an effort to drag WP into an alternate-reality post-truth age (Bannon: "the way to deal with [the press] is to flood the zone with shit.”). We don't need to wait for history books to be written to know this reality is staring us in the face right now. soibangla (talk) 18:29, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

• You may want to reconsider that. This moves things in the right direction. The ideal may have to wait. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:33, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

• This nonsense has gone on too long. The article will remain essentially a worthless whitewash until this key aspect of the man's persona is prominently presented in the lede, and no reasonable person should be willing to wait to read it in a history book.soibangla (talk) 18:49, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

• I don't disagree, but you need to be pragmatic here, because your firm idealism (which I share) may block progress. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:54, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

• Yep. Despite popular opinion, compromise is not a dirty word. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:02, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support per my previous comments. "Unprecedented" is not a WP:WEASEL word. It is word that describes something that has never happened before. Absent evidence to the contrary, we must rely on our multiple reliable sources that tell us that Trump's lying is unprecedented. There is no serious dispute of that fact.- MrX 🖋 18:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support, obviously. This is the nicest possible way Wikipedia can describe Trump's penchant for porky pies. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:06, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

GA nom?

After reading through this article, I think it should be good for GA status. However, seeing that it failed just over a month ago, I would like to request some opinions from other editors and or significant contributors. Thoughts? L293D (☎ • ✎) 20:19, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I think this article is too volatile to get GA status. It changes on a moments notice. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:22, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

This article is awful. It's shameful. This article abdicates its responsibility as a fair arbiter of truth. PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 03:16, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Articles must be stable and noncontroversial in tone and delivery and it therefore is no where near GA quality.--MONGO (talk) 03:18, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm pretty sure this fails the stability criterion. Looking at the article history, there have been a lot of recent reverts, and the article just came off full protection due to edit warring a week or two ago. I've found that ongoing controversial topics like these are often not good GA candidates.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 03:32, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

When doing GA reviews, the first 1st thing I look at is stability. This article is simple not stable enough to be featured as a good article. Sorry --DannyS712 (talk) 03:33, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Why did the GA nom fail before ? Has anything fixed those issues ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:05, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

The big reason was stability. When half the editors think it's accurate and the other half think it's ridiculous, it's going to be a problem I really don't think this will be stable enough to get GA for years to come. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:28, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

It's such a political firecracker that it's probably never going to get there. Cosmic Sans (talk) 16:16, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

@Markbassett: Looking at the last three good article nominations for this article, the primary reason for failing all of them was stability issues; that is, there was recent and persistent edit warring all three times. The stability issue hasn't been fixed and it's highly unlikely that it will be anytime soon, unfortunately.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 17:38, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Not Democratically Elected

The article should mention Trump isn't democratically elected, as he lost the democratic vote and only won due to the electoral college.2001:8003:3800:800:31C8:CA3A:2763:15D2 (talk) 09:57, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

We mention the fact that he lost the popular vote both in the lead and in the body of the article. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:20, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

According to the US Constitution, he was democratically elected. GoodDay (talk) 16:10, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Every President "only wins" due to the electoral college. We keep track of the nationwide popular vote but it has no bearing from a legal perspective as to who is elected President. Cosmic Sans (talk) 16:17, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

All other reasoning aside, we can include that if there are sufficient reliable sources to support the language "isn't democratically elected". The more controversial a statement, the more RS support we need. So kindly provide five high-quality reliable sources that say Trump "isn't democratically elected". No opinion pieces, please. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:16, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• ElectoralCollege2016.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:24, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Emphasis on dishonesty

For future discussions regarding how much emphasis we should put on Trump's dishonesty: "At this point, the falsehoods are as much a part of his political identity as his floppy orange hair and the “Make America Great Again” slogan." [22] R2 (bleep) 18:10, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, but how many times can we say that he's a lying liar who lies before (1) it's beating a dead horse and (2) it starts to look like there's an agenda at play. Cosmic Sans (talk) 18:29, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

One source of many saying very similar things. We already have wide agreement on that, which is why nobody has bothered to officially challenge the existence of an entire Wikipedia article devoted to exactly that. What's your point? ―Mandruss ☎ 18:35, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Mentioned several times throughout the article. Also I would use a stronger source then "a weekly column on life in Trump’s Washington". They are easy to find these days we do not need opinion articles for it. PackMecEng (talk) 18:42, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

What People Don't Know

Donald Trump the well known real estate agent,tv personality, and president of the united states. Is actually Ninja the Fortnite streamer and youtuber and if you don't believe me then explain this. If you look closely at Ninja and Trump you will be surprised to notice that they have the same eye color.