Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 106

Archive 100

←

Archive 104

Archive 105

Archive 106

Archive 107

Archive 108

→

Archive 110

Sentence about the Ukraine/Biden controversy

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

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

with the clearer:

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

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

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

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

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

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

―Mandruss ☎ 22:17, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I slightly prefer the shorter version for reasons of brevity. That said, this is not the Ukraine/Biden controversy. It's the Trump-Ukraine controversy and impeachment inquiry. - MrX 🖋 22:20, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I was about to remove Hunter's name as well – I think "Joe Biden's son" is sufficient for the lead, readers are unlikely to go away with the false impression that Biden has only one son, and as MrX said this is not about Biden–Ukraine – but I won't since there is a subsequent comment. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:27, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree the shorter proposals are better, but I'm uneasy saying Trump's goal was an "investigation", when his goal was the origination of derogatory narratives without regard to fact or circumstance and needing no investigation for their fabrication. I know it's hard to believe, but that's what was going on. SPECIFICO talk 23:30, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I cannot support a version that omits the cover-up which is an equal, if not greater, concern in the impeachment as it was with Nixon. If we want to add detail, that's fine, but we should not remove anything from the version at the top of this section.- MrX 🖋 10:24, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

Should probably describe Trump's side of the vaguely-proposed deal. "Offered Ukraine missile launchers" is about as wordy as "pressured a foreign government", just says a lot more. Maybe "military aid" is reasonably vague for the lead, but I think Ukraine is generally recognizable to casuals worldwide, unlike these Bidens (especially the new guy). InedibleHulk (talk) 05:56, September 29, 2019 (UTC)

@Awilley: The active voice and independent clause are good. Omitting that there was a cover up is a non-starter for me.- MrX 🖋 10:18, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

ETA: I would support any of the following:

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

or

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

or

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

- MrX 🖋 10:45, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Déjà vu all over again. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:03, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

1. Ugh, passive voice. 2. Does the whistleblower document actually use the term "widespread abuse of power"? ~Awilley (talk) 17:24, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Unless used too frequently, Awilley, passive voice is a perfectly fine writing style. "Widespread" is from the original wording that the lead material was derived from. The whistleblower complaint says "a serious or flagrant problem, abuse, or violation of law or Executive Order", but we can just shorten it to "abuse of power" which is widely reported. Perhaps something along these lines:

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

- MrX 🖋 17:58, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

We do not need to say "alleged". A "complaint" is an allegation.

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

SPECIFICO talk 13:47, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

That's a bit on the nose. I think it might be a tough sell.- MrX 🖋 17:59, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, let's you put it in the article and see whether anyone objects. BRD. If so they'll give us some detail as to their alleged concern. SPECIFICO talk 21:07, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Sure. Hold my beer. - MrX 🖋 21:27, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm concerned that "widespread abuse of power" is 100 times too vague to describe one particular missiles-for-dirt proposal between two well-publicized and democratically-elected heads of state. Who else should the people entrust to top-level manage international military and intelligence affairs? I also don't understand to what "cover-up by Trump" refers, but that could well be my fault for not digging deep enough. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:34, September 30, 2019 (UTC)

The abuse of power was Trump using military aid as a giant carrot in return for a "favor" of investigating the Bidens. That's clear from the transcript, the whistleblower complaint, and the reporting on all this. The cover-up relates to trying to hide the transcript on a secure server, as well as the machinations of the White House, Giuliani, Barr, Pompeo and others to avoid scrutiny.- MrX 🖋 10:54, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Didn't see this, sorry for asking below. Haven't American presidents normally dangled aid to desperate nations, though? Seems the conflict of interest is the scandalous thing here, not any kind of overreaching. Trump didn't secure those leaky national documents, his national security assistant did. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:40, September 30, 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it's OK as long as the favor accrues to the United States, and not to an elected official's political benefit.- MrX 🖋 13:15, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Hard to say who benefits untill the dirt comes up. If there actually is something destructive to Biden's popularity, the voters should know before they get conned into overlooking it. It's not like Trump really gains that much by eliminating one low-risk candidate and helping take back Crimea; still all of the remaining Caucasus and caucuses to personally worry about. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:52, September 30, 2019 (UTC)

I can only assume that was meant to be sarcastic? Trump personally benefits hugely by eliminating the leading (currently) candidate opposing him in the next election. And if he did withhold assistance from Ukraine, he would still benefit from effectively assisting the Russian invasion of Crimea, those same Russians that actively supported his 2016 election and are actively supporting his 2020 reelection. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:00, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

• Nobody's currrently opposing Trump among Democrats, they're fighting each other still. If Biden advances, this supposed bombshell could be huge for the Republican contender. But not yet. Ukraine got its aid back already, didn't it? Trump could have all the foreign support in the world and as long as only Americans vote, I don't see the problem. Maybe all American politicians couid have foreign support if they were friendlier with world leaders. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:28, September 30, 2019 (UTC)

I think I've summed it up in a short, sweet sentence that anyone can understand without knowing a thing about Biden and Ukraine. One needs actual ammo, one would be compromised by political ammo. Self-evident conflict of interest, even if all the names were switched or blanked, perfect for beginners (in my biased opinion, of course). Can't paste it here, though. If someone thinks it should be, feel free. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:11, September 30, 2019 (UTC)

Hulk's short, sweet, inedible sentence:

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

―Mandruss ☎ 09:31, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

This doesn't quite do it fo me, and I see its made its way into the lead already. Trump did not just seek a trade. He pressured Zelensky using his disproportionate power. "Political dirt" is a bit vernacular for an encyclopedia lead. My largest concern is that this sidesteps "abuse of power" and "cover up", which are central to the topic.- MrX 🖋 10:47, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Trading always involves pressure, and one side always has leverage. Here, it goes without saying; Ukraine needs war goods more than America needs yet another reason to disapprove of an old white rich male candidate. "Dirt" is mainstream enough, especially since Trump took executive power, but I could go for something "exotic" like kompromat, too. What is Trump hiding, and which power was "abused" (not rhetorical questions)? InedibleHulk (talk) 11:22, September 30, 2019 (UTC)

Trump was (allegedly) hiding the record of the telephone discussion. The power abused is the power of the office of President. Everyone should read the complaint.[1] I've built off of your edit, adjusting to active voice and adding the cover up angle:

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

- MrX 🖋 11:36, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Seems fair enough, I suppose. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:43, September 30, 2019 (UTC)

The focus of the sentence doesn't seem right. The whistleblower complaint drew attention to the problem and that led to the release of the "transcript" by the White House. It was that "transcript" which sparked the formal impeachment inquiry, because Trump's own words were damning enough, even without the whistleblower's "color commentary" (for want of a better term). Trump has tried to make it all about the whistleblower, because it is easier to attack that person than defend his indefensible actions. This proposed sentence seems to play into Trump's preferred narrative by putting too much of the focus on the whistleblower. I'm going to post this response and then try to come up with an alternative. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:54, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree with your second and third sentences about the sequence of events, but I don't think we should emphasize the cause. Technically, the decision to pursue impeachment came prior to public release of the transcript. We don't know if the transcript was leaked to Nancy Pelosi beforehand, although that's a reasonable assumption. Scjessey, do want to propose alternative wording?- MrX 🖋 14:35, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I just got back from having root canal surgery and I can't think straight at the moment. I will try to look at it a bit later. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:15, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, and I am sure that I do. There is no impeachment proceedings, yet. Jerry Nadler started an impeachment inquiry. Nancy Pelosi refused to commit, UNTIL the release of the transcript by the whistle blower. She has only committed to what Jerry Nadler has started, an impeachment inquiry. If sufficient evidence for a proceeding is acquired (the famous "road map to impeachment developed for Nixon) then she might gavel in an impeachment proceeding. Whether anything was leaked to Nancy Pelosi aforehead is irrelevant. However there is no reason to think that it was, she got her hand on the transcript of DJT's call to the Ukranian president at the same time as Nadler, and did not commit to an inquiry until then. An inquiry compiles evidence, which is then brought before Congress, debated and voted on, then it is sent to the Senate for trial, where it DJT will be found innocent by the Republican controlled Senate.Oldperson (talk) 18:33, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

• User:Mandruss had the best phrasing. Partly - the whistleblower complaint didn’t allege ‘widespread’, it alleged a specific. So “widespread” is both vague and incorrect. And the whistleblower complaint mention of concealment is part of or supporting evidence of that abuse, so just abuse includes it — cover-up would imply actions after investigations start, which would mean after the whistleblower complaint and not something it could include. Also, it’s ‘Biden and his son’ in the complaint. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:12, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

Close, but still think Mandruss a bit better, a bit simpler. Perhaps

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

. Just identify the topic, put details below or in linked articles. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:54, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

At this point, with all that has happened, I don't think that's quite sufficient. This is fast moving target, so it's difficult to pin down a version that accurately captures the major points. I think we need to say something about how Trump doubled down by publicly asking Ukraine and China to investigate Biden, and how the State Department was manipulated by Trump's personal lawyer for Trump's political gain.- MrX 🖋 11:41, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

That wording leaves the impression there was a vote by the House. There was no vote. And let's not forget Schiff lied which needs to be included. In fact, the impeachment inquiry is being debated. For example: The top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, Georgia Rep. Doug Collins, has emphasized that in his view, Pelosi's statements about impeachment carry no legal weight on their own. Let's get the article right. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:05, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

"Schiff lied" is not a statement that in any stretch, even if it were accurate, belongs in this article. The House initiated an impeachment inquiry does not imply there having been a floor vote - the impeachment inquiry is not being "debated," the impeachment inquiry was begun by the Judiciary Committee. And of course, there's no way that this article should reflect Doug Collins' personal point of view any more than it should reflect Barr's point of view. I am very concerned about your comments. Why would we uncritically reflect partisan statements of Collins or Barr, any more than we would uncritically report what Schiff or Pelosi or Nadler said about Trump? PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 19:19, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

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

Relevant current not world history

I object to this reversion by Mandruss This is not world history but important information as a counterpoise to Trumps justification for betraying the Kurds. I wish this to be reinserted.Other aspects of this event are included in the article. I will not get into revert wars. Please discuss: "Trump justified his action by saying that they didn't help us in WWII The Iraq Levies provided Kurds,Yazidis, Iraqi's, Syrians, Christians that served under French and British command during WWII, whereas Turkey was, until 1944, allied with Germany

Sources

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldperson (talk • contribs) 21:21, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Combining two distinct sources to form a point is a terrible idea, at least in article space. To do it back here is merely frowned upon. There's no such thing as counterpoise, at least not in those sources; come back with an article tying Nazi Turkey to Dubious Don and you might have some useable dirt. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:13, October 10, 2019 (UTC)

And you shouldn't refer to us in Wikipedia's voice. Trump is absolutely correct about the utter lack of assistance the vast majority of readers and writers received from "them" 75 years ago in Europe. Is that what you want, a world where the American president appears to be publicly telling the truth again? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:22, October 10, 2019 (UTC)

Last nitpick, Trump was talking about the Normandy invasion, which was under American command, so pointing to Kurds under British and French control is a non sequitur. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:28, October 10, 2019 (UTC)

We have an article that is already significantly above the size where our guidance says an article "almost certainly should be divided" (split), despite having already been split twelve ways to Sunday. There is no more splitting that would begin to make sense. We've had complaints about the large file size causing performance issues on some platforms. We've been discussing this literally for years. And yet the problem persists, precisely because editors insist on going into too much detail about political issues, many of which issues needn't be in this top-level biography at all. We have many sub-articles for that kind of detail. Near the top of this page: "Want to add new information about Donald Trump? Most often, it should not go here." – followed by a very incomplete list of sub-articles. That's there for a reason.

#Current consensus #37 represents an attempt to address this issue: "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." I would be interested in hearing how the content in question is likely to have a lasting impact on Trump's life and/or long-term presidential legacy. I don't mean the Kurds–Syria issue in general, but these specific details in particular. That's how #37 should be interpreted if it's to have any beneficial effect at all.

Multiple proposals for easier ways to address the issue have been defeated (remarkably, partly because they were easy), forcing us to laboriously challenge one addition at a time, which I did in this case. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:07, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Actually, that's not the way this article has been written over the past 4 years. We start out adding "too much" content, and we revise and trim it as much as possible. So our initial guesses as to what's enduring and what's clarified, disproved, or replaced, are likely to be pretty imperfect. We should not let that stop us from getting a good first version underway or to assume where we'll end up in a week, a month, or a year. SPECIFICO talk 01:03, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I've asserted that we've been doing it wrong for 4 years, resulting in the persistent size issues, and your rebuttal is that we've been doing it that way for 4 years? ―Mandruss ☎ 01:26, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, exactly! I think you've got it. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 01:34, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Article: Conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump?

Since there is "Category:Conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump" referencing twelve articles, maybe we should have a "Conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump" article. Yes, yet another Trump article!

I believe it is warranted by Trump's known affinity for conspiracy theories, including recent ones that are of significant consequence and deserve to be expounded upon at length, such as:

Beginning in 2017, President Donald Trump and his allies — based largely on speculation on internet message boards and repeated across conservative media — promoted multiple threads of unfounded allegations that by 2019 had merged into a sprawling conspiracy theory centered on Ukraine. Trump had long felt that the findings of the American intelligence community and the Mueller Report that the Russian government had interfered in the 2016 election to benefit him had undermined the legitimacy of his election as president. He and his allies — most notably his personal attorney Rudy Giuliani — promoted an alternative narrative that the Ukrainian government had interfered to benefit Hillary Clinton, in coordination with Democrats, the digital forensics company CrowdStrike and the FBI, alleging the Russian government had been framed. Trump falsely asserted that CrowdStrike, an American company, was actually owned by a wealthy Ukrainian oligarch, and the conspiracy theory claimed the company had planted evidence on the Democratic National Committee server to implicate Russia, while asserting the FBI had failed to take possession of the server to verify that claim. Although the FBI did not take possession of the server, CrowdStrike had provided the FBI with an image of the server to conduct its own analysis, which led the Mueller Report to concur with the intelligence community that the server had been hacked by Russian intelligence. Trump also asserted without evidence that Ukraine was in possession of the DNC server, as well as Hillary Clinton's deleted emails. The conspiracy theory later evolved to include baseless allegations of corruption by Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden in their activities in Ukraine. This led Trump to pressure Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky to open an investigation into the matters, which triggered the Trump-Ukraine controversy, which in turn led to the opening of an impeachment inquiry into Trump. His staff had repeatedly attempted to persuade Trump that the conspiracy theory had no merit, including his former homeland security advisor Tom Bossert, who later remarked, "the DNC server and that conspiracy theory has got to go. If he continues to focus on that white whale, it’s going to bring him down."

In a parallel effort, Trump directed attorney general Bill Barr to "investigate the investigators" who supposedly opened the FBI investigation into Russian interference for partisan political motives to harm Trump, including with alleged assistance from allied intelligence services. That investigation led to the Mueller investigation, resulting in convictions of some Trump campaign associates. In September 2019 it was reported that Barr has been contacting foreign governments to ask for help in this inquiry. He personally traveled to the United Kingdom and Italy to seek information, and at Barr's request Trump phoned the prime minister of Australia to request his cooperation. Barr sought information related to a conspiracy theory that had circulated among Trump allies in conservative media claiming that Joseph Mifsud was a Western intelligence operative who was allegedly directed to entrap Trump campaign advisor George Papadopoulos in order to establish a false predicate for the FBI to open its investigation. That investigation was initiated after the Australian government notified American authorities that its diplomat Alexander Downer had a chance encounter with Papadopoulos, who boasted about possible access to Hillary Clinton emails supposedly held by the Russian government. On October 2, 2019, Senator Lindsey Graham, a staunch Trump supporter and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, wrote a letter to the leaders of Britain, Australia and Italy, asserting as fact that both Mifsud and Downer had been directed to contact Papadopoulos. Joe Hockey, the Australian ambassador to the United States, sharply rejected Graham's characterization of Downer. A former Italian government official told The Washington Post in October 2019 that during a meeting the previous month, Italian intelligence services told Barr they had "no connections, no activities, no interference" in the matter. American law enforcement believes Mifsud is connected to Russian intelligence.

Sources

Also see:

• How a Fringe Theory About Ukraine Took Root in the White House
• Government-by-conspiracy-theory rides again
• Pompeo Defends Trump’s Ukraine Conspiracy Theory

soibangla (talk) 01:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Far too tenuous. I'm all for splitting the content about Donald Trump over multiple articles, but we already have an article about the truthfulness of his remarks. For the conspiracy theories themselves, they can be explained in their own articles. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:01, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Don't see the point of discussing here, if you want to create an article just do it - perhaps draft and publish, then the discussion will come at WP:AFD. starship.paint (talk) 02:06, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• Maybe also have a Conspiracy theories regarding Donald Trump too. Between them we might offload a lot of this article. Except those both sound like POV forks, so perhaps a joint Conspiracy theories from or about Donald Trump. Probably best instead to just have categories and exclude nutter bits from the serious articles. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:18, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@Markbassett:Trump is full of conspiracy theories, one of hisfavorite means of deflection (projection) project onto others what he is guilty of. However I know of no conspiracy theories about Trump. To date he personally validates about everything said about him,in front of Marine 1 or at photo ops..Oldperson (talk)

@Oldperson: - just saying, editors posted collusion delusion and debunked Trump-Russia conspiracy theory on this very page. starship.paint (talk) 02:43, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Starship.paint Hmm tough one...I was thinking more conspiracy theory as small items of Pizzagate level absurdity and uncommon belief like ‘Trump is a time traveller’ or such. The “collusion delusion” is a derisive term for what was factually a common (false) area, more an article or category itself. Yes, now it may seem silly enough to be in the realm of conspiracy theory. In any case, neither of these seem right for this article TALK unless we’re proposing removal of specific content from here to an article. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 11:30, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@Markbassett: .I was thinking more conspiracy theory as small items of Pizzagate level absurdity and uncommon belief like ‘Trump is a time traveller’ or such. - ??? Trump is a time traveler??????? You've got to be joking me. By the way, you need the User: in the link to ping. starship.paint (talk) 14:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint and Markbassett:I know nothing about any "collusion delusion" except that the only persons who mentioned collusion was Trump (first) then his cult followers. Nobody on the left has mentioned the word except to quote Trumpand his cult.

And where did you (Mark) come up with whacko "Time Traveller". I've never heard such a thing, or any such. Then again I don't do Twitter, Facebook or any social media as those are not RS,and (especially not is GOP TV aka Fox News and Fox and Friends or Fox lite (CNN), in fact most of the MSM is not a RS in as much as they are owned by a handful of corporations whose motive is profit, as Thom Hartmann calls it "Infotainment", you see only the news that they want you to see,and nothing that could cause damage to their profitability or existence. Best I can do is pull facts and ignore the pundits and talkersOldperson (talk) 15:40, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Starship.paint umm, at least a few different tabloid bits came from Democratic congresspeople talking “collusion”. If you haven’t seen right-wing derisive about “collusion delusion” or “witch-hunt” or “fake news”, you can find lots, and lots, and lots of it. In general I recommend delete from here any bizarre tabloid bits like mentions of him being Hitler, his being a werewolf love-child, secret messages in various kinds, that he via Epstein raped a 13-year old, that he’s anti-Semitic, that Wisconsin votes were hacked, that he did a climate-change website purge, that a MLK bust was removed from the White House, that Trump photoshopped bigger hands, etcetera. I could hope they were all just jokes, but gob-smacked as you may be, it seems some folks believe this stuff. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:25, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@Markbassett: - your pings aren't working because you're doing it wrong. That you would equate and group werewolf love-child with climate-change website purge smacks of massive ignorance. Here are the sources on the purge Guardian, NYT, and Time. Where are your sources stating that the reports of the purge as bizarre tabloid bits? If you can't provide these, I must really question your judgment on what constitutes bizarre tabloid bits. starship.paint (talk) 03:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Starship.paint Well Conspiracy theory being a catch all for absurd stories positing conspiracies and uncommon belief... If you’re convinced climate-change website purge is too commonly believed, perhaps ‘common myths’ or ‘fake news’ or ‘manufactured outrage’ might seem a better fit of it’s category. It seemed a clickbait or sensationalist title about fairly routine shifting old webpages to the historical section phrased as a conspiracy. That the website changes when the Presidency changes should hardly be surprising - it changes even during an administration. That anyone expected Trump to keep it just from ‘new broom’ effect, or given his campaign positions, or that editing a WH website is somehow secret kind of hit me as the mentioned “Pizzagate level absurdity and uncommon belief”. It at least seemed not commonly believable to me - but ehh, people maybe believe surprising things. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:36, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

@Markbassett: - I asked you to provide sources. You failed to do so. Your argument is kind of a false equivalency. You argue that such things are routine. The sources disagree. Time Christine Todd Whitman, the EPA Administrator under George W. Bush, says the overhaul is “to such an extreme degree that [it] undermines the credibility of the site”. You essentially continue to defend your grouping of fantasies regarding time-traveller Trump, werewolf-child Trump with climate change website purge - to which, I can only remind you that Wikipedia:Competence is required, especially in controversial topics such as this. starship.paint (talk) 01:56, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I’m glad someone finally brought up WP:CIR. I don’t begrudge anyone of any political persuasion, but I think there are pretty obvious clear substantive issues in this case. There’s only so much rope you extend. I’m hoping it can be dealt with here, rather than WP:ANI. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 18:45, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Starship.paint but of course not, as the subthread here is (perhaps you’ve forgotten as we’re deeply indented) a discussion about whether the proposed article conspiracy theory from Trump maybe mandates a matching article Conspiracy theories from or about Trump or a joint article ... and I suggested no article but instead category(ies) and exclude any such from this article. I then mentioned a number of such for illustration. Am I to read your request for cites as implying no objection to the large points of this conclusion about the topic (I.e. EXCLUDE ANY CONSPIRACY THEORY) and my general description ‘Pizzagate level absurdity and uncommon belief’, so just now wanting cites explicitly about that one ? And is your concern that ‘climate-change website purge’ does not fit as too commonly believed so belongs to another category, or what ? You’re seem going in two directions here and not clarifying what you’re looking for or why. Markbassett (talk) 05:33, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

@Markbassett: - I do not object to an article about Conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump, because the sources have written about it. On the other hand, I am not aware of many significant Conspiracy theories about Donald Trump. Thus I object to Conspiracy theories from or about Donald Trump. starship.paint (talk) 06:58, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

@Mark Bassett: Could you please clarify for me. Does this statement of yours (above)" If you’re convinced climate-change website purge is too commonly believed, perhaps ‘common myths’ or ‘fake news’ or ‘manufactured outrage’ might seem a better fit of it’s category mean that you categorize global climate change as a common myth or fake news? I think we need a discussion of fake news, what is and isn't.Oldperson (talk) 02:08, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Oldperson whether ‘climate-change website purge’ is too commonly believed relates to whether it fit my informal description of conspiracy theory as “Pizzagate-level absurdity and uncommon belief”. The phrase ‘Global climate change’ is a different topic, definitely not uncommon and a mix of - or contributor to ? — several other categories. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:42, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Starship.paint Mark I literally do not understand what you are saying above. Please be more clear and up front. I take it from your posts on the subject that you do not believe that Trump has ordered the purging of the words Climate Change from any official documents, if so it is not a matter of common belief but of facts. It is not a conspiracy theory it is a documented fact..Oldperson (talk) 15:55, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Oldperson - ‘climate change website purge’ was described above — it was a false portrayal about some conspiracy or secret moves in the WH website. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:04, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Template:Markbassett What is false about the facts that the administration has purged his administration of people (and use) of the worlds "climate change". Those are facts, not theories. As regards conspiracy theories. To date the only conspiracy theories that are hitting the airwaves are those being perpetuated by Trump. Trump apparently makes most of his moves in public, probably as a tactic misbelieving that if it is done in public it is not a conspiracy or illegal.Oldperson (talk) 22:15, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Starship paintIf a conspiracy is carried out in the open,what do you callit?I am referring to climate change purge. Climate change purge is an actual fact here are to RS Donald Trump using Stalinist Tactics to discredit Climate Science and /2019/mar/20/donald-trump-stalinist-techniques-climate-science Trump officials deleting mentions of ‘climate change’ from U.S. Geological Survey press releases These are just two RS, Conspiracy facts not conspiracy theories.Oldperson (talk) 22:35, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

In Canada, we call our open secret operation to keep the Industrial Revolution alive and well-off the Venture Capital Action Plan. No gates, everyone is free to watch the sausage made, speculate on its purpose or allege any candidate's involvement in or response to it. We just don't feel we should. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:57, October 10, 2019 (UTC)

User:Oldperson - to ping Starship it is User:Starship.paint - those pings are to me with his label. Otherwise, ahem ... the position that ‘the only conspiracy theories are those perpetuated by Trump’ isn’t at all plausible, and the opinion pieces that’s linking Trump to Stalin (or Hitler) just aren’t usable RS. They are not just WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims, they are tabloid-level Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:29, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

@Markbassett and Starship.paint: Let's see if I got that ping correct. Explain to me, with other than finger waving, why "the only conspiracy theories are those perpetuated by Trump" isn't at all plausible". Actually the only conspiracy theories I have seen or heard are those perpetuated by Trump. So correct me if I am wrong. Things like "Climate change Purge" are not conspiracy theories but RS reported facts. As regards linking Trump to Stalin or Hitler, that my friend is a logical fallacy, a red herring, changing the subject,moving the goal posts. No one,not me not the Guardian has linked Trump to Hitler or Stalin,however the Guardian stated that he was using Stalinist tactics. As regards Hitler, well that was Turkey in WWII. Neither I nor anyone I know has made a Trump Hitler connection. To be honest though I do see some scary similarities between Germany 1933 and today, and I am not the only one.Oldperson (talk) 00:49, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

@Oldperson: - your ping worked. If climate change website purging is carried out in the open, we call it horrible, stupid, anti-science policy ... provided the reliable sources say so. starship.paint (talk) 02:47, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Disputed Syria lies

Note: this is related to this revert.

Trump is reported to have stopped supporting Kurdish insurgents because it was wasting money. Saying he did it to allow Turkey to kill them is lying. An anonymous source told Fox Pentagon officials were "blindsided". Pretending it came from those officials, somehow in unison, is a lie. America paid, fed, trained, equipped and directed these Kurds. Saying these Kurds supported American action is a lie.

SPECIFICO thinks differently, so let's learn why. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:20, October 11, 2019 (UTC)

Don't make statements about other editors or characterize other editors' views. SPECIFICO talk 01:09, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to presume by your reversion of all three corrections. I'll ask next time. Do you think these lies aren't lies, differently from how I do? If so, can you explain how, for the good of the page? Have you read anything in a reliable source indicating your preferred version is true? Would you care to share a quote, or add a citation? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:36, October 11, 2019 (UTC)

• Suggest NOTHING here for at least a 48 hour waiting period, and the seriously consider putting it at some article more appropriate than his biographic like the Presidency or Foreign affairs. And please stop avoid any copy-paste-paste-paste to multiple articles. Markbassett (talk) 00:37, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

If these lies have spread verbatim, it's worse than I thought. Aren't Trump haters supposed to be against this sort of echoing harmful deception and willingness to ignore inconvenient mainstream conclusions? I'll take nothing over two days of hypocrisy (real or perceived). InedibleHulk (talk) 01:00, October 11, 2019 (UTC)

If anyone needs a diff to better understand how these lies were already corrected and defended, it's at 00:03 on October 11. Can't paste. Someone else can, if it'll help. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:17, October 11, 2019 (UTC)

I've added a note at the top of this section. ~Awilley (talk) 02:41, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

[2] Today, President Donald J. Trump spoke with President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey by telephone. Turkey will soon be moving forward with its long-planned operation into Northern Syria. The United States Armed Forces will not support or be involved in the operation, and United States forces, having defeated the ISIS territorial “Caliphate,” will no longer be in the immediate area. The United States Government has pressed France, Germany, and other European nations, from which many captured ISIS fighters came, to take them back, but they did not want them and refused. The United States will not hold them for what could be many years and great cost to the United States taxpayer. Turkey will now be responsible for all ISIS fighters in the area captured over the past two years in the wake of the defeat of the territorial “Caliphate” by the United States.

Hulk, the White House statement does not mention money at all. It mentions that Turkey is planning an attack. starship.paint (talk) 03:17, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

First footnote, Al Jazeera, cites Trump saying the insurgency was too costly, in money and equipment, for America to keep. Then it quotes the Press Secretary as denying any American cooperation with Turkey in killing its terrorists. No matter who finally cut off American interference, the Turks would've immediately finished what they'd started. It's like when a gambling addiction forces you to let the family pet run free to the whims of fate and natural predators. Domestically, you tell the kids he wasn't that great of a chimp, because remember when he didn't help grandpa fight off those creditors before they were born? Two different fronts, home and abroad. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:50, October 11, 2019 (UTC)

In October 2019, after Trump spoke to Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, the White House acknowledged that Turkey would be carrying out a planned military offensive into northern Syria; as such, U.S. troops in northern Syria were withdrawn from the area to avoid interference with that operation. The statement also passed responsibility for the area's captured ISIS fighters to Turkey.[550] Congress members of both parties denounced the move, including Republican allies of Trump like Senator Lindsey Graham. They argued that the move betrayed the American-allied Kurds, and would benefit ISIS, Russia, Iran and Bashar al-Assad's Syrian regime.[551] Trump defended the move, citing the high cost of supporting the Kurds, and the lack of support from the Kurds in past U.S. wars.[552][553] After the U.S. pullout, Turkey proceeded to attack Kurdish-controlled areas in northeast Syria.[554] - what I wrote. starship.paint (talk) 03:55, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I like it. "Military offensive" may be a tad euphemestic for Wikipedia's voice, but fork it. The important thing is the insane notion that America should continue to support, defend and harbour terrorists after their exemption from the War on Terror expires is attributed to some named sympathizer's online literature. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:17, October 11, 2019 (UTC)

Whistleblower Shenanigans?

It's recently been reported that the whistleblower form was rewritten mere days or at most weeks before the current controversy to allow hearsay complaints. Given said complaint is exclusively hearsay material shouldn't this be noteworthy? Who authorised the change and when it was finalised is still TBD but we're dealing with a very short timeframe. The current text treats the complaint allegation of a pressure campaign as gospel, and yet we don't even know if we can trust the document! 人族 (talk) 05:08, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

We should start by looking at your sources. Please list a few of the more compelling ones. I don't know what "hearsay complaint" means. - MrX 🖋 09:30, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Hearsay, as in the complainant details what he or she was allegedly told but has no personal direct knowledge. In a legal trial their testimony would almost certainly be excluded. Since this is a political trial the rules differ. As for a source noting that form was rewritten shortly before the complaint, try: https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/27/intel-community-secretly-gutted-requirement-of-first-hand-whistleblower-knowledge/. It's not the only site noting the issue but is probably the best one. Fox News for instance has a clip here: https://video.foxnews.com/v/6090165259001/#sp=show-clips where the matter is referenced but it doesn't cover it to the same level of detail. The information is only a day or so old so more pieces with further information may come out in the next few days. The significance of this information will likely depend on the role\significance of the whistleblower complaint in this article. 人族 (talk) 10:10, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

With any luck, we will not be covering the controversy at that level of detail in this article. This is not the place for point-by-point analysis. We're looking for lasting effects on Trump's life and presidential legacy, not detailed explanation of how we arrived at those effects. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:39, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Mandruss about the level of detail/analysis in this article. We can only afford to summarize the big picture. I would add that Trump's lawyer will never, ever be a reliable source for anything. Also, the whistleblower complaint is a complaint, not testimony in a trial, so the concept of hearsay is merely a partisan talking point intended to distract from the reality of the situation. The whistleblower complaint is a roadmap for where to get evidence and witness depositions which, by the way, is happening.[3]- MrX 🖋 10:51, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Seems a detail more suited for a dedicated article like Trump-Ukraine controversy. And it should have a 48 hour waiting period for whatever WEIGHT and responses to show up. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 13:39, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Three points: 1) The last paragraph in the lead, "In September 2019, following a whistleblower complaint alleging..." gives undue weight to a recent event. There should be very little if anything about impeachment in the lead (and that probably in a context of continuing efforts to impeach) until/unless he's actually impeached. 2) The section on impeachment is too long and too detailed for what is supposed to be a biographic encyclopedia article. 3) It seems to me that the last couple of years have shown that it's better to give things some time to develop rather than jump on the current Trump crisis of the day. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:29, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

That story came out yesterday. Others have not yet had a chance to dispute it, except on twitter. And it wouldn't belong here anyway. soibangla (talk) 18:18, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

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

Soibangla, the lesson, as always, is to wait for nonpartisan sources. Don't rely on The Federalist or Fox News for facts. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:31, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

To be fair, the Fox video was Trump's lawyer on a talk program hosted by a Trump propagandist.[4] - MrX 🖋 10:55, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Muboshgu, the problem is there are no non-partisan sources, only sources a particular side considers non-partisan. The Left hold their sources to be non-partisan, the Right hold their sources to be non-partisan, and the middle is a myth. Feel free to suggest sources you consider non-partisan but if you consider Fox and the Federalist partisan (Fox falls close to the middle), odds are most of the sources you recommend will be ones that those I mainly communicate with laugh about as highly partisan. 人族 (talk)

人族, if you don't consider Fox News to be a partisan source, we're not likely to agree on anything. "Middle"? Only in relation to OANN and Breitbart. "Non-partisan" sources include WaPo, NYT, CNN, and all the other standard sources that the right says are in the tank for Democrats. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:28, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Muboshgu, My apologies about the belated response. I don't visit Wikipedia on a regular basis and when I visit I rarely think to check messages. Never heard of OANN so can't comment on them. WaPO, NYT and Clinton News Network as non-partisan sources? RoFL. I don't think any American I know would treat that as anything other than a furphy. No that's not true, there's one or two Leftists that would accept them as sources, but whether that's because they consider them acceptably partisan or actually non-partisan I couldn't speculate. If it helps I do periodically read the NYT but they're so far in the tank that it's not funny. It shouldn't be called the Gray Lady but the Blue Lady! This difference of opinion though perfectly illustrates Wikipedia's problem - there are next to no sources that Regressives and Conservatives will agree are reasonable and each side has fundamentally different views regarding the facts of various matters. Yes I understand that facts shouldn't be in dispute, but these days truth and facts have become relative. 人族 (talk) 00:06, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

人族, "Clinton News Network"? They did devote lots of time to manufactured Benghazi and email "scandals". Their bias is corporate, not partisan. The New York Times meanwhile was breathlessly pumping up Giuliani's manufactured Ukraine bullshit, which has backfired. You seem to be too deep in the right wing bubble to recognize what is and is not biased. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:23, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't want to be rude or disrespectful of another editor, but my sides ache over the comment that (Fox falls close to the middle). Fox has been GOP TV, ever since Murdoch hired Ailes. The network lost about 110 million a year for 5 years, until it got up and running. Murdoch has an ultra conservative agenda, as any Brit who can watch Sky or reads the Sun. the Times and Sun Times. Murdoch is typed as a populist. A broad description, as Trump and even Hitler and Mussolini were populists. There is populism of the right (oligarchs, corporations) and populists of the left (labor, the common man).Oldperson (talk) 22:38, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@人族: - please watch this video and tell me again that Fox falls close to the middle. starship.paint (talk) 00:10, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

If you're talking about pundits, I don't know of any network that is not partisan, do you? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 04:16, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

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

Starship.paint, thanks but I pretty much steer clear of Twitter. And if the address refers to NowThisNews, then you're talking about something by an ultra-regressive quasi news site i.e. something with zero credibility. 人族 (talk) 00:06, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

@人族: - here's a YouTube link [5]. Trust me, the video is from NowThisNews, but every single word you hear will be from Fox News. Here's another video on a similar subject. [6] Just 10 minutes of your time. starship.paint (talk) 02:45, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Tree of Life Award from Jewish National Fund (JNF)

Please re-add the Jewish National Fund Tree of Life Award that was removed in edit 919723450. I have located a better reference that I believe meets the requirements of WP:BLPSOURCES, and it is the Haaretz newspaper at https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-inside-donald-trump-s-history-of-donations-in-israel-1.5469673 . To wit, "In March 1983, Trump, then a relatively young real estate mogul, was the recipient of the prestigious Jewish National Fund Tree of Life Award, which honors individuals and families for their dedication to promoting U.S.-Israel ties and outstanding community work." -- Ingyhere (talk) 08:32, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Courtesy ping MrX. — JFG ^talk 09:03, 13 October 2019 (UTC)