Jump to content

Talk:Donald Trump

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 157.185.73.50 (talk) at 19:07, 9 March 2020. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

ction/presidential-wikipedias/ 

 |org7=BBC News |date7=December 21, 2016 |author7=Staff Writer |title7=Most-edited Wikipedia pages of 2016 revealed
   |url7=http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-38394685
 |org8=The Verge |date8=January 20, 2017 |author8=Gartenberg, Chaim |title8=Wikipedia editors can’t decide if Trump is the president yet
   |url8=http://www.theverge.com/tldr/2017/1/20/14336626/wikipedia-editors-edit-war-president-obama-trump
 |org9=The Daily Dot |date9=June 5, 2017 |author9=Wyrich, Andrew |title9=Someone is trying to get Trump’s official portrait deleted from Wikipedia
   |url9=https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/donald-trump-official-portrait-wikipedia-copyright/
 |org10=The Verge |date10=22 November 2018 |author10=Warren, Tom|title10=Siri thinks Donald Trump is a penis|url10=https://www.theverge.com/tldr/2018/11/22/18108195/apple-siri-iphone-donald-trump-penis-wikipedia-fail-vandalism-editing

|org11=USA Today |date11=22 November 2018 |author11=Blumenthal, Eli|title11=Wikipedia vandalizing causes Siri to show a lewd image when asked about Donald Trump |url11=https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/talkingtech/2018/11/22/siri-glitch-shows-male-genitalia-when-asking-questions-trump/2088884002/ 

 |org12=The Independent |date12=23 November 2018 |author12=Griffin, Andrew|title12=Asking Siri for information about Donald Trump shows explicit image after Wikipedia edit|url12=https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/donald-trump-siri-explicit-image-apple-wikipedia-edit-explained-a8648556.html
 |org13=Newsweek |date13=23 November 2018 |author13=Gander, Kashmira|title13=Someone hacked Donald Trump's Wikipedia page, replaced photo with image of penis|url13=https://www.newsweek.com/someone-hacked-donald-trumps-wikipedia-page-replaced-photo-image-penis-1228571
 |org14=The Inquirer |date14=26 November 2018 |author14=Martin, Alan|title14=The Trump penis Wikipedia war has kicked off again|url14=https://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/3066986/the-trump-penis-wikipedia-war-has-kicked-off-again
 |org15=The Verge |date15=December 4, 2018 |author15=Brandom, Russell|title15=Wikipedia engages the ‘nuclear option’ after Trump penis hack|url15=https://www.theverge.com/2018/12/4/18125359/wikipedia-trump-admin-account-security-hack
 |org16=Slate |date16=May 28, 2019 |author16=Mak, Aaron|title16=Donald Trump’s Wikipedia Entry Is a War Zone|url16=https://slate.com/technology/2019/05/donald-trump-wikipedia-page.html

| author17      = Alex Pasternack
| title17       = How Wikipedia’s volunteers became the web’s best weapon against misinformation
| org17         = Fast Company
| url17         = https://www.fastcompany.com/90471667/how-wikipedia-volunteers-became-the-webs-best-weapon-against-misinformation
| date17        = 7 March 2020
| accessdate17  = 9 March 2020

}}

Former featured article candidateDonald Trump is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 2, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
February 12, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
September 18, 2016Good article nomineeNot listed
May 25, 2017Good article nomineeNot listed
December 2, 2018Good article nomineeNot listed
July 15, 2019Good article nomineeNot listed
August 31, 2019Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Former featured article candidate

Template:Vital article


Highlighted open discussions

  • None.

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

1. 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)

2. 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)

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

4. 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)

5. 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.

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

7. 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)
8. Superseded by unlisted consensus
Mention that Trump is the first president elected "without prior military or government service". (Dec 2016, superseded Nov 2024)

9. 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)

Business career

donald trump has been "a great leader" says ever middle aged white man out their. SOme fasinating facts about donald trump is he is a a ugly fat white man with a very rude disrepectful maner and thats on period.! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.248.244.102 (talk) 18:07, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per summary style (and the preceding section), I would like to propose summarising the business career section, with the Business career of Donald Trump article carrying the focus on that subject. We can move any content not already in that article, and leave behind a short summary. Thoughts? Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not be in too much rush to trim essential content. Parts of his business career are essential to his life story. Let's not assume the article needs slash and burn simply because of a software issue. And there are plenty of unnecessary references and some inessential content that can be trimmed but not removed. SPECIFICO talk 22:54, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but not nearly as essential as his presidency, and can be adequately covered in a few paragraphs at most. This isn't simply because of the technical limits, although the software issue is actually something very serious. We were never supposed to get close to reaching this limit. This is not the only thing we should do, of course. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:04, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Most of them are already summaries of existing spinoff sub-articles, but it might be worth examining where some can be summarized even more. Compare the summaries here with the leads in the articles. The leads should be the best summary in existence, but here we can summarize even more, if necessary. Just make sure no content is actually lost from Wikipedia. It's better to move than delete. We don't write outlines here. We write more in-depth than anywhere else. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:56, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Trimming the business career section is less of priority than several other sections that I mentioned above. One could argue that what we currently have is a summary. - MrX 🖋 23:10, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I broadly agree that other sections are higher priority, but we cannot waste time figuring out what is the highest priority. If there is consensus for something low priority, that should be immediately actioned. I don't think we can call what we have there a summary when this article is about someone who is primarily a political figure. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:01, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why is there still a two-paragraph section for Dismissal of James Comey? Top candidate for trim/removal, IMO. soibangla (talk) 00:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. There have been many other important events in his presidency. Comey's dismissal has almost been forgotten under the mountain of other scandals/controversies. This event is no more controversial than the many others that have occurred. Mgasparin (talk) 01:20, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:24, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not so fast. The entire section should not be removed. This was one of Trump's early major scandals. The material can be trimmed to a couple of sentence. Please propose something here before taking an axe to the article. - MrX 🖋 01:40, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How about two sentences in the special counsel investigation section? Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:15, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe. Could we see the sentences first? - MrX 🖋 02:29, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Let's not be in too much rush to trim essential content." ... The entire section should not be removed. This was one of Trump's early major scandals.

Nobody is talking about removing anything. We are talking about taking full advantage of WP:SS by moving much of the content to sub articles. In essence, we want to transition this article from being Trump's biography to the hub of Trump's biography. Nothing would be lost, in fact, forking the content in this way will mostly likely allow even more detail than has ever been possible before. It is no small undertaking, but it surely must begin. That is why I also support Onetwothreeip's proposal, which echos the one I made in #Media career. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:49, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be some confusion. You started a discussion about " summarising the business career section". Someone change the discussion to the Comey dismissal and someone else removed the entire section. That's what I was referring to. In other words, somebody was talking about removing something. - MrX 🖋 15:58, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not confused. You are. I didn't start this discussion. I did the one about the media career above. I'll support ANY effort to reduce the amount of content (and thus, citations) by taking better advantage of WP:SS. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:25, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article must remain Trump's biography seen as best we can guess from a future perspective. This article must not be recast into a table of contents with links to subject-specific articles most users will never click and that they wouldn't even be able to evaluate for significance. The deep citations beyond what's needed for verification can be moved to a supplementary page of additional sources and reading. Moreover, if a software constraint is getting in the way of proper and valid content, then change the constraint, not the valid content. I've done little trims of trivia, off-topic aside comments, and redundant sources. These appear to have been uncontroversial. Trimming an entire section on one of the most noteworthy events of Trump's life -- firing Comey, with the mounting paranoia and erratic behavior that followed, is against our purpose here. SPECIFICO talk 16:29, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • OPPOSE - as 50+ years and a major focus of his life and fame, it deserves major BLP presence and not elimination. It already is largely summary with side articles anyway. Also, this is too vague and unspecific, it needs to offer some lower and actionable specific edit(s) that maybe would be supportable. I would for example support moving the Conflicts of Interest subsection to the Presidency article as it seems misplaced here anyway. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:18, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support I have been proposing this for years, as an alternative to the people who want to nuke the "presidency" material. The alternate article already exists, it will only be necessary to strip out the duplicative material and leave a paragraph or two. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:17, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I misread the proposal. Are we proposing to start a whole new article, "Business career of Donald Trump"? Why in the world? We already have "The Trump Organization" as a perfect place for all of this material. Take the unnecessary new article and merge it with the Trump Organization. In fact I will file a Merger proposal as soon as this discussion is closed. But in the meantime, strip down most of the "business" stuff in this article; it can all go in the existing/merged "Trump Organization" article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MelanieN (talk • contribs) 20:23, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Business career of Donald Trump was created in November 2016. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:09, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WWE

Is any of this biographically significant? I have a proud track record of avoiding all wrestling, so I'm not qualified to know if these edits should be rolled back per WP:WEIGHT. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:52, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussions said they're not significant enough for this article (there are two in Archive 108 (no idea how to cite archived discussions), there may be others), and some of the material that was added today (hair match, Lashley/Umaga match etc.) was removed as trivial. Attendance at Wrestlemania XX and being interviewed by Jesse Ventura – that's new and seems even more trivial, and I have a proud track record of not avoiding all wrestling. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:23, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
None of this seems significant to the arc of Trump's life story. Maybe in some other article, but not this one. SPECIFICO talk 20:38, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WrestleMania 23 was the biggest cashgrab in pro wrestling's 120-year history, at the time. Attendance-wise, it still might be Trump's hugest offline crowd. The bare bones (participants, stip, result) are rightly noted in McMahon, Lashley, Umaga and Austin's biographies. Everyone on the show's article notes how they fared. Trump's performance is the only one that received significant coverage from reliable mainstream sources over the years, demonstrating a lasting effect. Probably even some scholarly articles, but certainly Fox, CNN and BBC. Seems extremely odd to single the guy in the middle of the marquee out as the one whose bio is irrelevant to these very brief, very important and very standard facts. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:22, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Ventura interview is relatively meh. In defense of a one-sentence note, I'll only say it actually happened. There are many paragraphs elsewhere about things that were merely supposed (by some) to happen, if space is legit running out (and too many citations to all opinions). InedibleHulk (talk) 16:31, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've partially restored some of the material that got taken out by another editor, and I've rearranged the refs a bit to reduce the number of times they are called. (diff) -- Scjessey (talk) 20:25, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have consensus that any WWE stuff belongs in the article (beyond enough words for a link to the WWE page? I doubt it. SPECIFICO talk 21:16, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said earlier, I have no interest or knowledge of wrestling. Since there is some dispute over what to include, I have essentially reverted it back to the stable version it was before (apart from a small cite reduction). As a person with no interest in wrestling whatsoever, I couldn't care less if the section was removed completely; however, I am given to understand from previous discussion that some people think it is an important part of Trump's biography. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:32, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but that's exactly the point. I have no interest in horse kidneys, but that doesn't mean I am agnostic if somebody claims they belong in this article. It's unimportant to his bio and we have other articles that cover it in the context of its importance to their subjects. SPECIFICO talk 14:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have no interest in wrestling, but it was a major part of his life, and so belongs in the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:56, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've had my interest in wrestling compared to a lot of niche tastes over the decades since it's gone objectively mainstream. Circuses, gay porn, cockfights, even local politics. But horse kidneys are a new low. I've owned horses and never seen even one kidney, much less read about how (or if) they actually work. But looking back, it seems we were all in Archive 108, so we all could have read the twelve stories about how heels work that Starship.pain(t) carefully illustrated for you willfully ignorant noobs (no offense, you just are).
Literally everything Trump has done to keep his "unpresidential" heat for the last four years is directly parallel to how men like Bobby Heenan, Freddie Blassie and Vince McMahon won the bona fide wrestling game of popularity, engagement and mind control. That's how you win elections, while genuinely not caring about advertising budgets, opinion polls, foreign opinion, marginalized demographics, facts or spelling. Readers upset with how Trump "stole it" last time (a fair few, I gather) should know more about how he stole the 2007 show as a babyface, not less. If they bother to pay attention, they might actually learn something about getting over in 2020, instead of trusting CNN's bland and robotic "safe choice" again. At the very least, they might be pleasantly surprised to see Trump in cahoots with a strong black American role model who isn't Derrick Lewis. Sharing reliably-sourced reaction from "The Black Beast" might be "too real" just yet. But a decent short overview of any WWE Hall of Famer's "fake and gay" career isn't "radical" or "problematic", by any stretch of the imagination.
You're just afraid to "legitimize" the idea that millions of registered voters and foreign agents still watch or remember WWF/WWE weekly since Reagan quit, I think. I'm afraid to admit other people watch hours of Senate testimony, and hours more still watching reaction vids to that testimony, then days here arguing with Congressional fanboys about how to best reflect the reflection (and how it might reflect on them in ten hypothetical years). But I let the bloated and controversial sections speak for themselves, don't delete what I fail to understand, simply skip it. I'm happier for it, too, I swear! InedibleHulk (talk) 18:57, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. I think there's a lot of Trump's past in his current presidency.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:55, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And in his current title defense. Hushing up how he shaved the chairman's head is one (arguably) understandable thing. But covering up the contribution and payoff history between he and the CEO is a whole other denial of reality. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:16, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder:WP:NOTFORUM. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If that's for me, I'm on point. Circling it, at least. Despite many first impressions, pro wrestling is far more complex than amateur wrestlers agreeing to be pinned for money. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:55, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Welcomed and encouraged" fails V

User:Scjessey - starting a TALK thread on this one, we seem at BRD time to open up a discussion on it.

While cleaning out excess cites, I came to a line in Special Counsel Investigation with four cites on it.

The report states that Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election was illegal and occurred "in sweeping and systematic fashion", and it details how Trump and his campaign "welcomed and encouraged" foreign interference believing they would politically benefit.[724][742][743][744]

The problem is that Mueller did not literally say "welcomed and encouraged", so the article enquoting is a false presentation. There is no "encouraged" about the interference and for the only line in Mueller report (pg 5) which says "welcomed" this text seems an invalid paraphrase. None of the cites actually say 'welcomed and encouraged' - specifically it doesn't say encouraged and it says only Trump campaign not Trump - or anything really close -- so I removed the back half of the line as lacking V.

  • 724 is the Mueller report. There is a "welcome" on Page 5, the second page of the Executive summary: The presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump (“Trump Campaign” or “Campaign”) showed interest in WikiLeaks’s releases of documents and welcomed their potential to damage candidate Clinton.
  • 742 is a David Frum May 2019 piece on theatlantic.com of his opinions what the report said. The body includes The Trump campaign “expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts,” and it “welcomed” this help.
  • 743 is a Jane Timm April 18, 2019 piece on the report, and it's subtitle said Trump's campaign "expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts," Mueller's report said.
  • 744 is a Monica Alba piece April 24, 2019, on the 2020 election and that the re-election campaign has not publicly stated that it will not use hacked materials to it's advantage. Down in the body is a line the Trump team expected to "benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts."

So - the enquoting of "welcomed and encouraged" is factually false, and the line in the article is a bad paraphrase of Mueller or any of the cites then present.

I did find use of the phrase in a WP:BIASED source about Muellers testiomny, a Congresswoman McCollum (DFL-Minn) press release here “Mr. Mueller’s testimony today reaffirmed that Russia attacked our democracy in the 2016 election to solely benefit Donald Trump. The Trump campaign welcomed and encouraged the interference and lied about it to cover it up. But as a partisan source that would have to be attributed and the PR just doesn't seem itself WP:WEIGHT enough to have in article.

So obviously I believe the best option was to just drop the end bit. Whether they liked it or not simply isn't a major part of the Mueller report. The first volume is on the Russian activities, and the second volume is on Trump hindering the investigation. Alternatively, the phrase could be edited to replace the part failing V with something that is the actual text such as Trump's campaign "expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts" or Trump's campaign "welcomed their potential to damage candidate Clinton".

RSVP and open to input from others. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:09, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Markbassett, OK, so "welcomed" and "encouraged" is fine. Or remove the quotes, they are superfluous anyway. Just fix it. Guy (help!) 21:20, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Welcomed is well sourced. The exact word encouraged I don’t see. But, we don’t need to use exact words if unquoted. Publicly announcing that he hoped Russia would recover emails described as missing from a private server sounds like encouragement to me. Welcomed and encouraged with no quotes works for me. O3000 (talk) 21:52, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Invited" and "requested" would also be accurate. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:25, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Solicited and welcomed? SPECIFICO talk 02:54, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Welcomed and encouraged without the quotes works for me, too. A quick search for each verb produced a long list of RS using welcomed and four using encouraged ([1], [2], [3], [4]). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:48, 1 March 2020 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:52, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Welcomed and encouraged" may have originated from the hearings. For example, this exchange between Robert Mueller and Adam Schiff:

SCHIFF: Trump and his campaign welcomed and encouraged Russian interference?
MUELLER: Yes.
SCHIFF: And then Trump and his campaign lied about it to cover it up?
MUELLER: Yes.

On that basis, it would seem that "welcomed and encouraged" is fine, with or without the quotes. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:06, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mueller also stated he was "not familiar" with Fusion GPS or the Steele dossier, didn't know who Corey Lewandowski is - despite being mentioned repeatedly in the report that he supposedly wrote, and gave contradicting reasons why he didn't indict Trump, among other various inconsistencies and memory lapses. There are assuredly more reliable and factual sources than that disastrous hearing. Architeuthidæ (talk) 18:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mueller said that Glenn Simpson was outside his purview, not that he didn’t know what Fusion GPS and the Steele dossier were. Looked through the testimony and can’t find any indication he didn’t know who Lewandowski was, and there were multiple reasons why he didn’t indict. Keep in mind that this is a WP:BLP. O3000 (talk) 19:02, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mueller: "Not Familiar" With Fusion GPS, "Outside My Purview" It's both. After being asked about Fusion GPS, Mueller replied "I--I'm not familiar with that. I--could you--". After a Republican congressman explained to Mueller the significance of Fusion GPS, and brought up Glenn Simpson, then he said that it was "outside my purview." I admire your willingness to read through that testimony, but the Lewandowski tidbit is covered in reliable sources so we don't have to do that [5]. Yes, he gave different and contradicting reasons why he didn't indict. In any case, I think we can all agree that the Mueller testimony isn't reliable. We should find some reliable sources for this "welcomed and encouraged" wording. Architeuthidæ (talk) 19:17, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Read the transcript. He did not say that he was not familiar with GPS Fusion or the Steele dossier. And no, we do not all agree his testimony isn't reliable. Again, this is a BLP. We must be careful not to make negative statements about living persons without reliable sources. RS do not say what you are claiming. O3000 (talk) 19:51, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I watched the hearing live last year. Here on Wikipedia, we need to use reliable sources rather than our personal opinions and takeaways from various pdfs on the Internet. Nobody said anything negative about living persons, so we don't need to worry about that. Reliable sources say Mueller was not familiar with Fusion GPS, per my link above. You're getting bogged down in the minutiae. You can rely on the testimony, but here, we need reliable sources for the "welcomed and encouraged" wording. Once someone finds some, we can take a look at it and go from there. Architeuthidæ (talk) 19:57, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that Mueller is dead? Or are you saying that all your comments about him are not negative. We take BLP seriously here. And I am not bogged down. We have already discussed welcomed and encouraged and it appears most of us are OK with this. O3000 (talk) 20:02, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don't get smart with me, please. Obviously Mueller is still alive. If you want to perceive facts such as "Mueller said he was 'not familiar' with Fusion GPS" as negative, that's your prerogative, but we need to discuss facts. If you think you have a legitimate BLP grievance, you are free to run it up the chain and see if it sticks. If the majority are okay with relying on Mueller's testimony, that's fine by me. Just adding my two cents here on the issue. Architeuthidæ (talk) 20:12, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We also deprecate obstinate insistence from Single Purpose Accounts. O3000 is correct. SPECIFICO talk 21:30, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. We can safely ignore the opinion of any editor who says "Mueller's testimony isn't reliable." That's just absolutely absurd on many levels. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:26, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, we can go down the personal attack route - I could reply and say that we should ignore opinions about Trump from virulently anti-Trump editors on talk pages related to Trump. But I won't do that. We should just focus on providing reliable sources for improving the article, and make sure we play the ball rather than the man. Editors are free to rely on Bob Mueller and buy his Saint Bob Mueller Prayer Candles. Just as long as we stick with reliable sources, we'll all be on the same page. Architeuthidæ (talk) 23:48, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Architeuthidæ, it's not a personal attack. Rejection of Mueller comes solely from motivated reasoning and relies on the assumption that facts cease to be facts when they are politically inconvenient. Guy (help!) 23:53, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
it's not a personal attack. In my opinion Architeuthidæ is both right and wrong. It was not a personal attack by en-wiki's narrow definition (much of it necessarily unwritten), which is effectively "If it won't get you sanctioned for NPA violation, it isn't personal attack." Scjessey didn't say "You are an insufferable fool" or something. My advice to editors is to be very conservative in their use of the words "personal attack", because over-assertion enables responses like it's not a personal attack. But we should play the ball not the man as Architeuthidæ says, and I suspect Scjessey knows that. He has no doubt seen "Discuss content, not editors" many times, and he probably has said it himself a few times. Apologies for the diversion. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:48, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We do stick with reliable sources, which say Trump "welcomed" and "encouraged" Russia to help his election. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IMO "welcomed and encouraged" is factual and sourced, and if we want a direct quote, the Mueller testimony works. Others here have suggested "solicited" or "invited" which are also factual; Trump literally requested Russian interference on live television. I prefer Mueller's own words, but am open to other wording. But we cannot remove the conclusion that Trump - not just his campaign, but Trump himself - welcomed and encouraged Russia to help him in the election. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Welcomed and encouraged" without quotes is a problem because it is a direct lift from the hearing, not the report itself, and does not attribute the phrase. In fact, the phrase originates from a question at the hearing, not the testimony by Mueller (though he answered affirmatively). [6] Sourcing policy probably requires a better indication of where that phrase derives from. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:15, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Scjessey: It might be helpful if you offered a source to support your point, rather than simply telling another editor they are wrong. At the very least, this raises a legitimate question of what the proper attribution should be here. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:07, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikieditor19920: I don't need to provide a source, because one was already provided by another editor (example). Trump literally asked Russia to hack Clinton's emails on live television, which was covered by every media outlet on the planet. We use the word "encouraged" in our text, but any synonym of the word (invited? begged?) would suffice. We don't need attribution because we are saying "welcomed and encouraged" in Wikipedia's voice, as part of our lead summary. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Scjessey: The question is whether "welcomed and encouraged" is properly attributed to the report, not whether it's the WP:TRUTH. I don't see that source supporting this attribution, and the press conference is not relevant to the issue of the report itself. I don't think that a phrase lifted from the hearings should be attributed to the report if it doesn't actually contain that language. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:24, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We aren't saying that the report contains the specific phrase. We are saying that the phrase summarizes the findings of the report. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:34, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But it's clearly implied by the use of the phrase in the current text. "Welcomed and encouraged" is lifted from the subsequent hearings, but the current text seems to suggest via an WP:INTEXT attribution that it's from the report. Since it's not, that's clearly a problem. There is a technical problem with how this phrase is currently presented and attributed. Borrowing something from the hearings and implying it's from the report might actually be WP:SYNTH. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:39, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then fix the attribution. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:46, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BullRangifer, Don't get aggressive with me for raising an issue. I don't necessarily know what the most agreeable wording is. There is currently a problem with what's presented. We have a possible discrepancy between what the nominal author of a report says, and what the report actually says, and we can't afford to be sloppy on this by treating both sources (the report itself and the author's later statements) as if they are one in the same, esp. since the phrase "welcomed and encouraged" didn't actually come from the author. I think the entire phrase should be scrapped in favor of whatever the report says. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:54, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal We leave the phrase "welcomed and encouraged," and include an explanatory note indicating the origin of the phrase, with a possible quote of the Mueller-Schiff exchange. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:01, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikieditor19920, no aggression intended, just suggested one way to fix the situation. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:10, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure me diving in and implementing my idea of what's correct will have long-standing effect on this page. I raise it here because some kind of consensus would obviousy be best. I think an explanatory citation note will require little to no modification of the current text and provide the attribution that's needed, so I'd be curious how people feel about it. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:15, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's a no on the citation note in the lead. It simply isn't needed. The explanation is in the body of the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:58, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that "welcomed and encouraged" is a phrase directly lifted from the source. The attribution can't be in the body of the article, it needs to be in the same line as either an WP:INTEXT or a citation. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:57, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Scjessey No, the line and section is about what is specifically in the report Volume I. I think we’re all clear that “welcomed and encouraged” is not literally in the report and not in the cites the editor had, and apparently not referring to the report. Someone just edited in a false quote there is all. It’s only in the scrutiny of cite reduction trying to see which could be removed yet support the line that fails V became apparent. Possibly ‘encourage’ is referring to the earlier campaign remarks about the 30,000 missing emails rather the report content. Possibly it is referring to the framing Schumer said in the later hearing rather than the report content. The point is, those would not belong in this line and should not be attributed to the report or Mueller. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:26, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:MrX - sigh. I see you have reinstated the “welcomed” phrase, but did not provide a support. No, it is not enough to simply remove the quotes, as this is not from the report nor the prior reviews of what the report said, and does not even seem to be about the report. Removing quotes just shifts it from false V to lacking V. Procedural notes
Please note WP:V lead “Please immediately remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced.” And in the BURDEN section “Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.”.
As the restorer, please provide such a source which is reviewing the report and says this is in there. *Not* just any cite with the phrase such as a cite that says it as a truth in general, or happened in 2016, or as a later remark by Schumer — but one that is reviewing the report and so meets V “The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article.”
Or move the phrase to the Presidential campaign section or later hearings section or something where it is supported. Or just follow the V instructions and delete it here as it was a bad quote. I will tag it as citation needed. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Markbassett: Phleeebpt. You made a bad edit and I fixed it by removing the quote marks, consistent with what several editors have said in this discussion. Scjessey quoted Mueller's testimony. MelanieN made a strong argument in support of the material. JzG advised that the problem is solved by removing quotes. Muboshgu cited two sources and Space4Time3Continuum2x cited four. You do realize that most of American heard Trump ask Russia for help, right? - MrX 🖋 12:37, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is amazing to me that a couple of editors think that by saying the same thing over and over again, it will change the facts. "Welcomed and encouraged" (without the quotes) is WELL SOURCED and the language is supported by a majority of editors here. It's time to move on. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:34, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the problem seems like we're having two different conversations. No one is disputing that there is a source for the phrase "welcomed and encouraged." The issue that MB raised and that is valid is that this source is not the report itself, which is what the article text suggests. Yes, this is nitpicky, but for the lead of probably one of the most read articles on WP, I don't think that's inappropriate. This has nothing to do with the WP:TRUTH of whether this happened, this is a technical sourcing/attribution issue for language directly lifted from an external source. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:23, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Scjessey Supported for elsewhere, but not for the place it is. Yes, it is amazing to see that you keep repeating ‘in the report’ is supported. Giving cites that support such will do, saying it is supported doesn’t provide V. BUT frankly this is just defending a *false quote* that was shockingly bad cite practice. Someone put it in although all four of the cites said no such thing, so they simply weren’t looking at the things they were citing. It seems just from other places, not in nor about the report, so does not fit here. “The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article.” Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Welcomed and encouraged" (without the quotes) IS NOT A QUOTE, Mark. It is OUR language that is supported by reliable sources, and it is a perfect summary of how the report characterizes the Trump campaign's position on foreign interference. What part of that don't you understand? Removing the quotes fixed it. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:53, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
FIXED. You see how easy it was, Mark? It took less fuss and edits than your "citation needed" tag. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:06, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:MrX - Citation still Needed. By removing the quotes you only ‘fixed’ it into unsupported. You still need to either remove it or meet BURDEN and provide a clear support. The two added do not do. The NYTimes.com cite has nothing relevant, it is about the hearing being disappointing, which has nothing close to mentioning welcoming or encouraging, even Schumer saying it. The abcnewsgo cite also will not do. It is at least about the report and substantial. In it Bruggeman clearly supports the same as the four other cites did - a quote “the Campaign expected to benefit electorally”. The closest otherwise is Bruggeman gives background mentioning “In July 2016, around the time Trump...” but there he says the Mueller finding is that the campaign was planning a press strategy for more Wikileaks. This would support ‘the report said they planned to benefit from Wikileaks’ but does not support ‘the report said they welcomed and encouraged Russian interference’. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:04, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Scjessey: "Welcomed and encouraged" is not language original to an editor's summary, it is a quote from a question posed to Mueller at a congressional hearing. The phrase is exactly the same as the question shown in the source. We can't pretend that a phrase wasn't lifted when it clearly is. All that needs to be done here is add a footnote to the exchange, and it will be properly attributed. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:34, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter where the language originated from. It is perfectly acceptable language that I have already provided a source for, even though it isn't necessary. And of course, we do not need to do it in the lead because it is already in the body. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:27, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Scjessey - Nope. First, it *does* matter where the language is coming from - the attribution it should have is the issue here. And no, the cite you gave to the Washington post is yet another that does not clearly support the article line about the Mueller report "The report says" or "it details how" attribution for "welcomed and encouraged". It nicely snapshots where instead it is 'Philip Bump in WashingtonPost.com' says about the 2016 IC findings "Mueller’s investigation bolstered those findings and demonstrated ways in which Trump and his campaign aided or encouraged those interference efforts, even if unwittingly."
Look - "welcomed and encouraged" was a false quote, acknowledge that it was wrongly placed (at best) and starts with less than zero credibility as what should be here. Removing the quotation marks does not magically undo that it came from a *false quote*. It seems to be about the 2016 campaign, or perhaps from the hearings -- and removing the quote marks does not magically make it about the report. We've got five cites explicitly and prominently quoting the report that the Trump "Campaign expected it would benefit electorally", and instead pushing 'welcome and encouraged' is just not paraphrasing this or even trying to.
The article went from three redundant cites to now three cites that are bad for "The report says" and "it details how". The NYT cite is about the hearing and nothing there. The ABC cite is about the report and nicely substantial including closing with "Campaign expected it would benefit" with in the middle that authors view 'the Mueller finding is that the campaign was planning a press strategy for more Wikileaks'. The WaPo cite about Trump tweet indirectly acknowledging the Wikileaks (amplified by the media) helped his election. Could be said as a WaPo statement but not proper in a line that attributes it as "The report says" and "it details how". Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:08, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely disagree with you, Mark. A fair summary of the Mueller Report is that Trump and his campaign welcomed and encouraged foreign interference. We do not need to cite that language as long is it represents what a preponderance of reliable sources say about the report, which it absolutely does. The removal of the quotation marks was a satisfactory solution, and that's all there is to it. A majority of editors agree with me. Time to move on before you get into the realm of disruption. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:45, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Markbassett, I have to agree with Scjessey. Without the quote marks, the words are an excellent description of the findings in the Mueller Report. It's time to move on. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:35, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's a perfectly acceptable summary -- it's also not our summary. We are ignoring the fact that the quote is directly lifted from the congressional hearings and not offered elsewhere. Pretending the phrase is an original summary written by a WP editor and removing attribution via quotation marks doesn't solve the problem that MarkB identified, it makes this WP:PLAGIARISM. This shouldn't be acceptable on any page, let alone one of the most viewed on WP. If we cannot agree on a new original summary, then an attribution via a footnote should be provided to indicate the source of the phrase. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:15, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Three common words is not plagiarism. O3000 (talk) 17:20, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the measure for plagiarism. "Welcomed and encouraged" is a distinct phrase, originating from one particular source (or exchange, for that matter) that appears nowhere else. Pop that phrase into a search engine along with "Trump" and "Mueller" and all of the results will reference the Schiff-Mueller exchange. Any basic plagiarism-checking program would catch this. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:55, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. I propose "encouraged and welcomed" (without the quotes). TOTALLY DIFFERENT. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:28, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I propose that, if "welcomed and encouraged" (without the quotemarks) is the best (concisest and most accurate) paraphrase, it matters not that it was heard in the hearings. We are not going to scour the transcript for language to avoid in this article. But if reversing the word order will allow us to put this to bed, I'm all for it. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:26, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I propose the article that any statements of what “The report says” actually use the language of the cites about what the report says — which can be the commonly offered true quote from the report “the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally” (from Wikileaks). That simple and honest. The false quote was bad information and trying to somehow squint hard and keep it is inappropriate. V was failed, V says to delete such. That simple. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:30, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a quote. It's not a quote. This is tiresome. O3000 (talk) 01:38, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It was presented a a direct quote from the report. That false quote was bad information. Trying to keep it when there is a clearly present alternative that was in the cites and widely reported is inappropriate. This would be substituting factual information with misattributed plagiarism or editor creative writing. V is fairly direct and simple for poorly sourced material: delete the phrase. Perhaps time to RFC between false quote vaguely almost-supported versus true quote widely reported ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:08, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you've lost me. There are no quote marks. It is not a quote. We fixed that. What it may have been is completely irrelevant. And it is clearly not plagiarism. Look up the word. Indeed, you seem to be arguing that we must use exact wording but cannot use exact wording. O3000 (talk) 02:47, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Look, there is a reason it was quoted in the first place, and that's because the phrase is widely known as being attributed to Schiff's question to Mueller on whether the Russians "welcomed and encouraged" assistance. We can either bury our heads in the sand and now pretend that it wasn't, present another source that is not quoting Schiff using that exact same phrase without, or we can attribute the phrase to Schiff. Option one is not actually a legitimate option. We can keep "welcomed and encouraged," but we just need attribution. If I knew how to format footnotes I'd have done it myself already. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:22, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How many times does this need to be said? It doesn't MATTER if the phrase is associated with the hearing. On this article, we are using it as a summary of the reports findings. It needs no additional support that what it gets in the references, and it certainly doesn't need a footnote that would misleadingly suggest we are using those words because of Adam Schiff. A significant majority of editors are fine with this language. As I indicated previously, continued objection in the face of a clear consensus can only be considered disruptive. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:56, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Objective3000 It was a false quote. If you’re lost, try looking at the top of this section where that is shown. Someone put it in without ever looking at the four cites which gave clear support for a *different* phrase. Removing quotes magically moves it to an unsupported statement and false attribution, which means still failing V for what “The report says”. It was bad information, it’s still bad information. And no, User:Scjessey, a vote does not eliminate V for what is a factually false statement. Now I suggest that for a line about what “The report says”, a NYT cite to the Hearing and a WaPo 2016 cite about the IC report just won’t do. I will put in the ‘Campaign expected’ quote that was prominent in all four original cites, using Mueller and the new ABC cite. If there is something more that can be supported it can follow that. Up in the 2016 campaign section or as a hearing remark maybe - but it just doesn’t fit here. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:05, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Contrary to your assumption, the cited NYT article attributes the statement that (in the NYT's summary wording) the Trump campaign welcomed the Kremlin sabotage effort to Mueller's report, rather than basing in on something Mueller or Schumer said at the hearing. Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:02, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adding U.S. to place of birth

I think we should add U.S. to his place of birth. Since there're some rules regarding presidents being natural born citizen, adding U.S. behind Queens, New York City will completely clarify to the reader that he was born in the United States. Additionally, every other president appears to have U.S. behind there name which would keep with the consistency of US president infoboxes. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 21:35, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Linking NYC

I recently linked the first instance of New York City in the lede. Spy-cicle reverted this, citing WP:OVERLINK. I hardly think it is overlinking to link the first time a term is used. Indeed, it is required to link the first uses of link-worthy terms. Ergo Sum 21:54, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Under WP:OVERLINK (for what generally should not be linked) it states: The names of subjects with which most readers will be at least somewhat familiar. This generally includes major examples of: locations (e.g., Berlin; New York City, or just New York if the city context is already clear; London, if the context rules out London, Ontario; Southeast Asia). Most readers are familiar with well-known locations like New York City so it is redundant to link it. But even if a reader was not aware he/she could click on the Queens wikilink a few words prior.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 22:12, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What Spy-cicle said. Observe OVERLINK or explain why this case should be an exception to it. Separately, any editor can seek to change it. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:15, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Inaccurate approval

The approval ratings section is outdated. It states that Trump's approval is the lowest in modern history. It should be noted that recently his approval ratings have matched that of Obama and other recent presidents Alec935 (talk) 18:00, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly. Trump's lowest = 35; Obama's lowest = 40. Trump's highest = 49 (there might have been one 50 recently). Obama's highest = 67. Trump's average = 40. Obama's average = 47.9. Per [chart]. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:57, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
However, I agree the section is outdated and also too much detail for a biography. I will try to trim it to the basics. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:12, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did a complete rewrite to bring it up to date, use better references, and remove trivia. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:26, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed trimming

"Racial views" and "Allegations of sexual misconduct" both have main articles already. So is it all right with people here if I trim those sections down to a paragraph or two? -- MelanieN (talk) 21:15, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. No need to repeat information that is already in a separate article. That should also help with the size issues here. Mgasparin (talk) 23:51, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and by the way, congratulations to everybody here for finally reaching a consensus on how to trim. We finally got the article size below 400k for the first time since February 2019. Mgasparin (talk) 23:58, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, the sexual misconduct stuff has never been important to the public, except as it relates to the Billy Bush tape/Wikileaks timing and the Jailing of Michael Cohen. So I think there's lots that can be trimmed there. The racial "views" stuff, at least post 2011, is the core of Trump's brand and political success. I suppose the "squad go back" thing is insignificant, but I suggest you try to keep most of the post-2011, possibly with summary sources that give an overview of the significance to Trump's narrative to his core demographic voter groups. SPECIFICO talk 00:45, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, trim.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:53, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Err, race has absolutely nothing to do with Trump's "brand" or "success." A fairly disgusting remark that should be retracted. Architeuthidæ (talk) 17:50, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would not be opposed to reducing 'Racial views' by a paragraph or two. Paraphrasing what SPECIFICO correctly points out, Trump's racial views are core to his political brand. Maybe the last paragraph can be removed. Possibly the second paragraph can be condensed a bit. I think the 'sexual misconduct' section can probably be condensed to two paragraphs. - MrX 🖋 18:11, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do either of you have any evidence to back up this inflammatory claim that "race" is "core to his political brand"? We really need to be careful here when attacking politicians in this manner, especially with wild allegations. Architeuthidæ (talk) 18:19, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I support MelanieN's proposal: those sections can be effectively trimmed to a few lines, notwithstanding the political exploitation of those themes. I would add the "Foundation" section to heavy trimming candidates; this has not been a central pillar of Trump's life, and the dedicated article covers it extensively enough for curious readers. — JFG talk 09:21, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to work on a draft of the trimming here on talk, as it's evident that the trim is agreeable but that there is disagreement as to what and how to trim. SPECIFICO talk 14:21, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I trimmed the sexual misconduct section since that seemed to be uncontroversial. Another 5900 bytes and 12 templates gone! with no loss of meaningful content. I will work on a proposed trimming of the racial views section and propose it here before implementing it. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:25, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good call, JFG. The Foundation section is currently four fat paragraphs and 19 templates. All of that information is available at the linked main article so this could be majorly trimmed without damage to this biography. I may work on that first. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:46, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That one was pretty easy. Another 3600 bytes and 6 templates gone. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:22, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, I like what you did on the sexual misconduct accusations. I think the "racial views" will benefit from talk page discussion, because there seems to be dissent as to the significance of the underlying events. SPECIFICO talk 20:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looking again at the "racial views" section I don't see much hope for a major trim. Multiple individual incidents, each already described very briefly so no trimming there - and it wouldn't be easy to come up with criteria for which ones to remove entirely. So I am not going to attempt that and will look for easier/less controversial areas to trim. Looking particularly for sections that already have a "main article" link. There has been so much splitting and forking from this article; since those other articles exist we should be able to reduce duplicative coverage in this one. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:04, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think you should trim the 8 paragraphs down to one or two. I agree with MrX for once about only trim it by one or two. Perhaps the opinion of Political Science Quarterly as lowest WEIGHT ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:52, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New image

Current image (2017)
Proposed replacement (2020)

There should be an updated image in the infobox. It has been over 3 years since the present one was taken. My proposed new one on right. TrailBlzr (talk) 21:14, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The "official portrait" is what is supposed to be in the infobox, per convention. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:27, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Other active politicians with official portraits have more recent images in their infoboxes. Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders for example. These cases seem more analogous to Trump than former presidents who are either dead or long-retired. TrailBlzr (talk) 21:35, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking about the convention for presidents. Besides, Biden doesn't have an "official portrait" right now as he doesn't have a role in government. I don't know about Sanders, but what goes on at one article does not determine what happens at another. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:39, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to start by taking a look at Current Consensus item 1 for past three discussions here on the subject. For American Presidents generally we go with their official portraits, for example Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George H. W. Bush. PackMecEng (talk) 21:47, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, use official portrait. I'd likely say that even if the alternative weren't almost identical. His jacket is a bit straighter in the official portrait, presumably because it was less spontaneous. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:57, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, use official portrait. The Sanders TALK archive 19 was mentioning should use official photo, but that the photo was 12 Years old so they went IAR. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:10, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the official portrait. Trump hasn't changed so much in 3 years that updating the image would noticeably improve the article. As far as quality goes, the new image looks less professional, almost candid. Mgasparin (talk) 22:25, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The 2nd looks ugly. 23:32, 8 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:5:80D:0:0:0:AA (talk)

Agree with convention on using official portraits -- by far the more recognizable image. Also, lighting on the left one is worse, as to be expected when comparing a staged professional photograph with one that seems not so. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 05:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump&oldid=944757022"