Jump to content

Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 110

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 105←Archive 108Archive 109Archive 110Archive 111Archive 112→Archive 115

False information

Issue already settled, no further discussion needed. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:01, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

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

Until the impeachment articles are officially turned in he is in fact not impeached and that's backed by the Constitution. That part needs to be removed and stated as it actually is not this false media trash Enzo912 (talk) 17:04, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Enzo912, what you said is not accurate, so no. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:13, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
It'sThere exists a two-step process. Impeachment is the first, and the House alone has responsibility for that. They impeached him. Now comes the trial by the Senate. It's possible to be impeached by the House, but not convicted by the Senate. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:16, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Debateable or rephraseable. “Impeached” is perhaps not true until the moment of delivery. But a phrasing “House voted and approved articles of impeachment” would be technically accurate. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:58, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Looks like a good way to present the facts while preventing repeated questions about this technicality. — JFG talk 08:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Wikilinks are wonderful things. "Trump has been impeached." Problem solved. - MrX 🖋 12:00, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Doesn't work here: this phrase already links to the specific impeachment of Donald Trump. — JFG talk 12:47, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
This is going to shortly become a moot point anyhow. Nancy has finally agreed to hand over the articles: [1]. After the dismissal or acquittal, it'll make the wording easier and more permanent. Architeuthidæ (talk) 16:56, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Will still have the debate on what date is he impeached - is it 18 December 2019, or is it xx January 2020. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:37, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
No, that has been settled. Our Impeachment of Donald Trump article, which is based on RS, starts with this: "The impeachment of Donald Trump, the 45th president of the United States, occurred on December 18, 2019, when the House of Representatives approved articles of impeachment on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress." Next comes the trial. That is not an impeachment. That has already happened. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:42, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Indeed. This drives me absolutely crazy. Trump's acolytes have been peddling this bullshit in the media since the moment he was impeached, falsely claiming that the impeachment hasn't happened yet. It's been repeated so many times (Republicans are GREAT at staying on message) that many people have bought into the lie, including some of the editors here. The House has impeached Trump, the exact moment coming when the result of the House vote was read out by the speaker. That is done. Now it is up to the Senate to hold a trial, which is a completely separate thing that has nothing to do with impeachment. Threads like this should be shut down immediately after they are opened, because they are a total waste of time. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:04, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Per the Constitution, he was impeached by the House on December 18, 2019. The Senate's impeachment trial (whether real or kangaroo) will result either in acquittal or removal from office (fat chance). An acquittal by the Senate will not purge the impeachment by the House from his "permanent record," just like it didn't in Clinton's and Johnson's impeachment proceedings. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:58, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Correct. I wish more people had paid attention during fifth grade history class. - MrX 🖋 21:07, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
I got a wish, too. I wish people would not stop at 5th grade education and also have some original thought(s) at least once in a while. Keeps the horizon open for new things to discover. right?--TMCk (talk) 22:38, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Removal of DPRK news

I find it kinda odd that Jack Upland would remove this edit...

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&curid=4848272&diff=933439968&oldid=933438021

stating "This doesn't belong here. No direct connection to Trump & not really a major development"

when it's an addition to a dedicated DPRK subsection, and Trump has loudly declared that DPRK is no longer a nuclear threat and points to their testing moratorium as proof. This is a big deal.

I think the edit should be restored. soibangla (talk) 00:08, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Soibangla, I agree, it appears appropriate, significant and neutrally worded. Guy (help!) 00:21, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Given that there are concerns about the size of the article, no, it doesn't belong here. The dedicated subsection is not for any news from North Korea. In this case, Kim is talking about breaking a self-imposed moratorium, not a diplomatic agreement with Trump. And so far the moratorium has not been broken. We should wait for major developments directly related to Trump.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Jack, and thanks for demonstrating the slippery-slope chain of tangents that occurs when we allow that level of detail about the presidency into this article. A requires B, which then requires C and D, and so on, with little way to know when to stop. This is a one-page biography of Donald Trump, not an article about North Korea's nuclear threat. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:31, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
I agree with you in concept, so should the whole subsection come out? I added the edit because if we decided to start telling the story, then we're committed to telling the story, and this is a major development. soibangla (talk) 00:49, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
I would strongly support the removal of any and all content at that level of detail about the presidency. I don't know if the subsection needs to be eliminated, but we don't need 255 words on North Korea in this article. Applying the same principle to the entire presidency would go a long way toward addressing the multiple size-related problems with this article, very possibly eliminating them for the remainder of his time in office (which, lest we forget, may be another five years). ―Mandruss ☎ 01:00, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
I think we need a subsection about North Korea. North Korea is mentioned in the lead. It is a flagship policy for Trump and is often a target for his detractors. His actions have been a dramatic change from his predecessors. But I don't think we need to include the whole story. We certainly don't need a running commentary on North Korea's diatribes here. I think all we need after the DMZ summit is:

Talks in Stockholm began on 5 October 2019 between US and North Korean negotiating teams, but broke down after one day.[1]

Sources

  1. ^ Tanner, Jari; Lee, Matthew (5 October 2019). "North Korea Says Nuclear Talks Break Down While U.S. Says They Were 'Good'". Time.
That brings things up to date with regard to negotiations. The subsection could be even more succinct with a bit of editing.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:17, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Pretty good wording: I support it. — JFG talk 08:41, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
But it doesn't bring things up to date. Yesterday Kim announced he was abandoning his moratorium, after apparently conducting two ICBM engine tests earlier in December. soibangla (talk) 19:00, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
I think we are going round in circles.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:13, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Agree with not including WP:RECENTISM. It could well belong on an appropriate Trump subpage, like his foreign affairs, or some NK-specific pages. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:42, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Agree with not including same-day tidbit from NYT as it doesn’t seem BLP material and lacks WEIGHT. Also it looks like an exact cut-paste of the line in the Presidency article, and enough already with xeroxing multiple times each NYT snipe du jour. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:06, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
I haven't seen any conclusive reporting as to the meaning and significance of the Supreme Leader's statements. Better article content will become available with a short wait. If it turns out this marks the failure of Trump's NK strategy, that will be described in RS and will certainly be significant enough to describe in his biography. NK, Iran, Russia, and Turkey all represent major initiatives Trump has personally spearheaded. SPECIFICO talk 23:22, 1 January 2020‎
I think "failure" is a matter of opinion. People are still debating the merits of Bill Clinton's North Korean policy. Given that the Korean conflict has continued for 75 years, it never seemed likely that it would be resolved in a few meetings. I think it's overblown to call this a failure. And Trump's term is not over.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:44, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
I think I said that if RS describe a failure, that will establish significance of the current juncture. SPECIFICO talk 03:31, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Oppose it..it`s relevant 2600:1702:2340:9470:3444:5E6E:46CD:DFFC (talk) 18:41, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
I have added the proposed sentence about the talks in Stockholm and tightened up the subsection.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:32, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Category:People with antisocial personality disorder

Trump should be excluded from that category, as he has never been clinically diagnosed with that disorder. Lochglasgowstrathyre (talk) 22:01, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

"Draft:Mental health of Donald Trump" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Draft:Mental health of Donald Trump. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hog Farm (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Question about allegations

Absolutely worthless thread. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I think this page is beautifly set up. But I would love to know why other, specifically progressive and liberal politicians pages are not similarly set up. There are allegations here that wuld be negated from their pages. Why is this a thing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:187:4002:4160:B8D1:8B48:75AF:98CA (talk) 09:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Many other articles, including those about liberal politicians, contain allegations. See WP:PUBLICFIGURE for how it's supposed to be done. What is your point? -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:18, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Also, this article has been extensively scrutinized and the text crafted by a large number of editors to conform only to facts and narratives found in significant numbers of mainstream reliable sources. There is nothing in this article that can't easily be verified by further reading of the cited references or a web search of various subjects. SPECIFICO talk 18:12, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
A liberal leaning or dissimilar handling has been mentioned many times before, but this TALK is only able to address specific edits for this article. And per WP:WEIGHT WP is to convey the sources in proportion, what the bulk of mass media says should be more prominent. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 18:32, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
What appears or doesn't appear in other articles for other subjects has no bearing whatsoever on what appears or doesn't appear in this article. Complaints about other articles should be raised on the talk pages of those articles. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:53, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
User:Scjessey mmmm - comparisons are put forward. For example, the “third president to be impeached” thread above here, saying it should have prominence like Clinton’sarticle. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:00, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Apart from being part of Wikiprojects and being informed by the structure of others, articles are meant to be "islands" that function on their own. Saying that "X article has it, so Y article should have it too" is essentially whataboutism, which is to be actively discouraged. The original poster suggested that the articles of "progressive and liberal politicians" have "allegations" that are "negated from their pages," but not this page. This is plainly wrong. To quote Stephen Colbert, "reality has a well-known liberal bias." The reality is that just about everything there is to know about Trump is awful, so his article should naturally reflect that. In fact, this article is a model of restraint, showing Wikipedians' natural reticence for documenting negative aspects of any living person. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:27, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Agreed..first kill all the lawyers..they can prove anything with words..the truth has nothing to do with it 2600:1702:2340:9470:14B3:A536:533A:AD06 (talk) 23:22, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Articles of Progressive and liberal politicians do seem whitewashed at times, in contrast to say Trump seems exaggeration and inclusion of even trivial or iffy criticisms and excluding positive items. Much can be explained by WP use of WEIGHT, so WP gets whatever liberal bias mass media has. The rest seems a factor of volunteer editor actions. For example, see “Most admired man” thread above - fine for years, but now that it’s a positive for Trump, it’s up for deletion. To rephrase that Stephen Colbert quote, liberal bias has a well-known reality. I don’t think this is something leading to or fixable by a specific edit though, so other that suggesting the concern go to WP:VILLAGEPUMP, I think this thread is done. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:54, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
@Markbassett: Sorry, but I couldn't disagree more. The notion that articles about progressive/liberal politicians are deliberately whitewashed is just plain wrong. There is, of course, a little bit of systemic bias caused by the fact that much of the mainstream media that we rely on for sourcing also has a bit of systemic bias, but generally I have found most Wikipedia articles about politicians to be models of neutrality. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:31, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Yup, the fact that mainstream media tends to be more factual than the right-wing media filter bubble just might have something to do with it. Facts matter. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:26, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
This kind of argument reduces this business to a numbers game, which is why I avoid it. All of you need to learn to check your completely unprovable worldviews at the door. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:55, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
User:Scjessey Mmm, Denialism or Willful blindness. It’s all due to media but WP shows the “models of neutrality” just isn’t credible, and certainly the evidence of content and TALK behaviour here and in further political and other contentious articles says otherwise. Volunteers just come with baggage of imperfections and POV and biases, and someone saying ‘I’m fine it is the other guys that are biased’ is really just saying ‘biased from my POV’. Ditto those saying all the fake news is on the other side. But unless you have a specific edit for here or answer to OP other than just saying Trump attacks are de facto easily allowed, I think this thread is done. A general getting the article better is more a wikiProject topic, and that of inevitability of bias is more a topic to take to the Village Pump. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 January 2020

Remove this https://twitter.com/POTUS as it’s not just Trump’s twitter it was also used by Obama before he left office and might be used by the next president 2600:8805:BC82:2300:F5D9:7FE6:9A33:CEF2 (talk) 17:55, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Most admired man in America?

I strongly object to this edit

The Gallup poll for his third year in office, Trump tied Obama as the most admired man in America.[4]

A poll of ~1000 people does not determine whether someone is "the most admired man in America." - MrX 🖋 18:15, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, it is a poll and the edit explicitly mentions that he's the "most admired man in America" only according to the poll. Whether you think a poll of 1000 people determines whether someone is the most admired man in America or not, the edit explicitly mentions that this information came from Gallup, meaning the information is already phrased in the form of a stated opinion rather than a proven fact. Donald Trump and Barack Obama may be the most admired men in America according to the Gallup poll, that's still "Gallup says this, Gallup says that", which is no different than Oprah Winfrey being named the "Most Influential Person" or Dick Clark being named "America's Oldest Teenager" (those are mentioned in both Oprah Winfrey and Dick Clark). Wikipedia itself is not making the claim that Donald Trump is the most admired man, only saying "Gallup says this, Gallup says that". The reader can still decide by for themselves by reading Donald Trump whether Donald Trump is really one of the most admired Americans, and places like Gallup and Forbes say things all the time whether they think someone is a highly regarded person or not, but that doesn't make it true or false, but Wikipedia mentions that stuff anyway if they're as well known as Gallup. Any company or magazine that's well known is always going to say things about people that are well known and that's why more often than not a Wikipedia article about a public figure is going to have some mention of "According to this magazine/publisher/etc, such and such person is one of the most highly regarded persons in this aspect". Wikipedia itself is not making those sort of claims and is just repeating what the magazines/publishers/companies/etc have already said about such and such person. Therefore, I don't see any case of POV-pushing or anything of that sort by mentioning the Gallup poll.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 19:02, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
To be clear, this content is vapid and not remotely encyclopedic. Using your logic, I could add something that says more then two thirds of voters polled by the Wall Street Journal and NBC News do not like Trump personally: [5], lather, rinse, and repeat. - MrX 🖋 19:39, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Seeing as how often the public opinion of a president is discussed in the media, good or bad, I don't see the problem with including it in some way or another, just as long as the entire article isn't bloated with "This person thinks this about Donald Trump and that person thinks that about Donald Trump". Opinions about presidents are generally more notable or noteworthy than opinions about other people. But if we're going to talk about removing "The Gallup poll for his third year in office, Trump tied Obama as the most admired man in America.", then we might as well remove the entire section "Trump is the only elected president who did not place first on Gallup's poll of Americans' most admired men in his first year in office, coming in second behind Obama. The Gallup poll near the end of Trump's second year in office named him the second most admired man in America – behind Obama – for the fourth consecutive year. The Gallup poll for his third year in office, Trump tied Obama as the most admired man in America.". Because based on the arguments for removing just the "The Gallup poll for his third year in office, Trump tied Obama as the most admired man in America.", and since the argument seems to be about whether we should mention at all whether people like Donald Trump or not, by those standards, the entire section, not just the one part, needs to be disputed.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 19:56, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
User:Acekard, please engage in discussion here rather than re-instating what has been reverted by another editor. One of the bolded instructions visible while you were editing the article reads "If an edit you make is reverted you must discuss on the talk page and wait 24 hours before reinstating your edit.". ---Sluzzelin talk 19:48, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • WP:UNDUE. Especially since much larger polls show him to be the most consistently unpopular President since polling began. He has not had average net approval since his first presidential trip to Mar a Lago. Guy (help!) 19:51, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Acekard, in their edit summary (and thank you for removing your edit) as well as Mythdon do have a point though: What about all the other Gallup polls mentioned in the article? Particularly in the sections Donald_Trump#Political_activities_up_to_2015 and Donald_Trump#Approval_ratings. I'd have no problem seeing them removed, because I, too, find them "vapid". What do others think? ---Sluzzelin talk 20:17, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
To be clear, I would remove all the "most admired" polls, they are annual spacefillers of no objective merit. What's important is analysis of the net approval rating, which has been a shade over 40% almost from the beginning. That is unprecedented, in a way that a cult figure being admired is not. Guy (help!) 20:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
I agree. Leaving Gallup polls where Trump performed subpar in the article while omitting the newest one where he performed better, however, is not acceptable, in mv view. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:40, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
I agree also. - MrX 🖋 22:28, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I would say include this one, until and unless all the weird negative trivial polls are thinned out. It isn’t right to only allow negative polls, highlighting oddball passing moments like the 10th month or comparing July number to Obama median. None of these seem BLP or significant, nor does the section capture a good overview so deleting all seems as reasonable as having both positive and negative numbers. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment ALL polling should be removed from ALL Wikipedia articles, with this being a perfect example of why. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:12, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
    Fine, I probably wouldn't oppose that. In this instance we're encountering something that looks like cherry-picking Gallup results as it suits what we think about Trump, however, and that is a huge shame. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:14, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
    Scjessey, not all polling (approval / disapproval ratings are widely reported and considered significant, with substantial analysis of the aggregate of all polls). But this kind of polling? Absolutely. Along with "was listed at #99 in the 100 greatest $FOO by $FOO magazine" that we see in so very many articles. These things are designed to promote the polling organisations or the publications, or to fill space. They are almost always either subjective or based on tiny data sets, and they are of no merit at all as encyclopaedia content. Guy (help!) 09:31, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Scjessey put forth a great suggestion. Polling is routinely used by the media to lie and try to sway public opinion toward their views. This "most admired" stuff is a perfect example. Look at the demographic and ideological breakdown of these polls. Nearly all of the "Trump is most admired" people are Republicans. Nearly all of the "Obama is most admired" people are Democrats. Republicans despise Michelle Obama, and Democrats love her. Democrats despise Melania Trump, and Republicans love her. "Most trusted news source" is another one. Republicans trust Fox News, and Democrats don't. Democrats trust CNN, the Washington Post, the New York Times, and nearly all of the other media companies with all of their hearts. Republicans do not trust the mainstream media companies, and they believe that the media are lying to them and are rife with bias. Liberals trust Chuck Todd. Conservatives trust Sean Hannity. Remove all opinion polling related to politics, or at least note the ideological breakdown of the poll results. Architeuthidæ (talk) 17:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Not a forum — JFG talk 08:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Architeuthidæ, I see no evidence that Democrats despise Melania. I know a number of Democrats commented on her crass fashion choice when visiting the concentration camps, but that is not the same as despising her. I also see no evidence that all republicans despise Michelle Obama. Not all Republicans are racists, though of course you do have to be OK with racism to remain Republican these days, with Miller running immigration policy.
There is, however, a serious problem right now with social discourse. Around two in five Americans are partisan conservatives, and consume only partisan conservative media. Conservative media is rewarded for publishing ideologically acceptable claims and punished for publishing facts that conflict with ideology. Liberals consume a much wider spectrum of media and get most of their information from fact-based outlets that suffer a penalty if they publish inaccuracies, even if they are ideologically pleasing. So the MAGA base is anchored to a ship that is drifting. Kremlin-sourced propaganda is repeated as fact, and intelligence assessments from all US and allied security forces is dismissed as deep state fake news. Under those circumstances, when a sizeable minority of America is being told that Donald Trump is Lincoln, Jesus and Patton all rolled into one, any poll testing "admiration" is a waste of space. Guy (help!) 18:28, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
You just attacked the First Lady's wardrobe, called all Republicans racists, attacked conservative media, praised liberals (and implicitly liberal media outlets), and gleefully proclaimed that the "MAGA base"/GOP is going down. You also slipped in a cheap shot at Stephen Miller, implicitly calling him a racist as well. Boy, it's really tough to see which side you identify with. A guy just told me on another page to "mind WP:NPOV" for stating a fact. I wonder if he knows what kind of stuff is going on over here at this page. Architeuthidæ (talk) 20:13, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
JzG Architeuthidæ, The whole thing with being Democratic, Republic, Conservative, Liberal, etc, is that one can only identify as such. Whether someone identifies as Democratic or Republican, someone else might come in and say "You're not a Democrat because you don't support this" or "You're not a Republican because you support this". That's one of the reasons politics on Wikipedia should be held to a higher standard of NPOV than other things on Wikipedia. Politics is really just mostly everyone's different points of view, which is why it's so much harder —yet all the more important— to maintain a NPOV for biographies about politicians than biographies about other living person's (like say musicians and business magnates). To separate fact from truth is a lot trickier with politics than a lot of other subjects. Politics is more like science. What may be a political or scientific "fact" may be a political or scientific "fact" now but may not be a political or scientific "fact" years from now. Like with how we're disputing whether to include polling or not. Gallup polling X amount of people may be a fact, but whether Donald Trump is the "most admired man in America" can only be taken as truth (which is entirely determinant on whether people accept the Gallup poll as fact or not). So giving due weight to what people say is all the more of a conundrum on Wikipedia when it comes to politics. There's always going to be someone out there that can debunk a political or scientific study or claim, not matter how true or factual it may appear. Anything that's included on Wikipedia that's entirely based on data sets should be treated as such, and should be written in a way that it's perfectly clear that it's only based on a data set. And they should either be mentioned with appropriate weight or not mentioned at all, hence everyone's arguments about cherry picking.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 20:34, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Not to mention that opinion polls are more of a measure of how effective the media has been with disseminating propaganda, rather than providing any actual insight. Considering less than 1 in 4 people can point out Iran on a map, and a good amount of Americans pointed to Antarctica or Greenland as their final guess[6], nobody should be particularly impressed with "Wow! Melania Trump is more admired than Michelle Obama!" or "Wow! Most people hate Trump!" type poll results. They're meaningless. Architeuthidæ (talk) 20:49, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
I think I need to clarify my statement about polling, because Architeuthidæ's reasons for not wanting them differ dramatically from my own. I would prefer to see polling eschewed in favor of expert analysis informed by polling. I don't like to see naked polling without context. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:24, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
That still raises the question of how to include polling, in that only including "expert analysis informed by polling" still goes back to polling. Although your suggestion could work if coupled with RCraig09's suggestion, that still opens the door to more cherry-picking if not invoked carefully and cherry-picking is exactly what we should try to avoid.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:42, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
That's central to the reason why polling has a place on Wikipedia and doesn't have a place on Wikipedia at the same time. As Objective3000 states, polling can be seen as a case of the WP:10YEARTEST in that while WP:NOTABLE may not technically apply to article content, the same principles about notability can still be applied to article content when it comes to things that are only temporarily noteworthy, which is where WP:NOTNEWS also comes into play. So in one aspect, it's about how to include polling (RCraig09 made a good suggestion as far as mentioning Trump's popularity throughout his term) instead of clinging to the idea that all polling should be removed from all articles, But in another aspect, the question on how to include polling is so arguable that removing all polling from all articles ends up being the best option anyway. Polling is one of those things where you can look at it from millions of different angles but you'll always end up going back to square one, which is why my position on including polling has sort of evolved throughout this discussion.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:26, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Let us remember that this is an encyclopedia. Some time from now, as a retrospective, this may be of interest. Not now. WP:RECENTISM
  • At most, a summary of Trump's popularity might include polling trends throughout his term, but dedicating an entire sentence to one poll makes the article read too much like a resume. —RCraig09 (talk) 22:55, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Remove all Gallup "most admired" polls and comparisons to Obama. Don't cherry-pick. — JFG talk 05:38, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Per my comments above and considering Sluzzelin and JFG have made valid points, I no longer object to the removal of that last sentence about him and Obama being "most admired", as long as the rest of the mentions about Gallup are also removed. While we can argue all day about whether one sentence about Donald Trump being "most admired" should be included or not, I think WP:NPOV takes precedence here. The best way to go about this is "All or nothing" like I mentioned to MrX above, as being selective about what polls to include would be taking sides on the issue which goes against WP:NPOV at its core. Although I still don't see anything wrong with polling or Gallup being mentioned in Wikipedia articles, I'd rather there be a well-balanced article without polling than a heavily-biased article with polling that cherry picks what editors want to include from Gallup (like I said, we can argue all day what to include or not to include from Gallup). I guess I'm willing to settle and to compromise in this case, and rightfully so, I think everyone participating in this discussion should see it that way too. That being said, I think maintaining a neutral point of view —especially when it comes to politics— is much more important than arguing whichever poll is worth mentioning or not.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 07:25, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
    Mythdon, admired is such a loaded term anyway. In context it reads as "of those polled, Trump supporters were most loyal to their man". Which, given the way the conservative media has pushed the idea that to be conservative is to love Trump, is not a surprise. Guy (help!) 09:34, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
    I suppose that's true, mainly in the sense that polls are only answered by a certain amount of people, and therefore misrepresent the general public's opinion of Donald Trump as a whole. Polls are most certainly their own thing and therefore should be treated as such (like everyone, no matter which side of this discussion they're on, has been saying). I think you're onto something here with some of the compelling arguments you've so far presented.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 09:40, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
  • There are several polls about Trump every day making over 1,000 since he was elected. This one poll is trivia. WP:10YT O3000 (talk) 20:54, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Object to the sentence because it's mangled English and because it misquotes Gallup, but I think we should keep the Gallup poll results because they're widely mentioned (CBS, ABC, CNN, Politico, TIME, USA Today, Fox News). It's also widely mentioned as remarkable that, while it's Trump first time in first place, it's Obama's record-tying 12th time. Suggested text:

The Gallup poll near the end of Trump's third year in office for the first time had him tied in first place with Obama who tied President Eisenhower's 12-time record.[1][2]

References

  1. ^ O'Kane, Caitlin (December 30, 2019). "Presidents Obama and Trump Tie for Most Admired Man in 2019". CBS News. Retrieved January 11, 2020.
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference gallup1678 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:25, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
All polls are biased 2600:1702:2340:9470:586C:88D9:1EB5:6FD4 (talk) 23:37, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't think "remove this latest 'most admired' result (because we don't like it) but keep the results already in the article" is an acceptable option. We need to be neutral. IMO we can keep them all, or none of them. I think we should remove them all, and I am making that proposal below.-- MelanieN (talk) 20:38, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: remove ALL mentions of "most admired man" polls

"Most admired man" poll results have been cited in this article for years. No one has objected up to now. We certainly can’t list the poll results that showed him rated tenth or second, but then suddenly object to the one that shows him tied for first! We can either list them all including the most recent, or we can remove them all. Personally I think we should remove all of these rather meaningless, once-a-year surveys from the article (while keeping the much more meaningful, more scientific, and frequently updated "approval rating" polls). Since the material has been in the article for years it would need a consensus here to remove it. I propose:

  • Remove from the "Political activities up to 2015" section, According to a Gallup poll in December 1988, Trump was the tenth most admired man in America.[261][262]
  • Remove the entire paragraph about most admired men from the "Approval ratings" section. Keep the other paragraph, about approval ratings. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:38, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
In the above discussion, some people said to restore the latest result, some said to remove all “most admired” results, and some said remove all polls. @MrX, Mythdon, SPECIFICO, Sluzzelin, Acekard, JzG, Markbasset, Architeuthidae, Scjessey, Rcraig09, and Space4Time3Continuum2x: How do you feel about this specific proposal, to remove all “most admired” mentions? This proposal does not suggest removing ALL polling results as some of you suggested; that idea should be discussed separately elsewhere. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:49, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
@Markbassett: Repinging, typo'ed it the first time. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:00, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
@RCraig09: Another typo, sorry. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:05, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
I've done polling before..every poll is sponsored by someone who has an agenda..usually either the democratic or republican parties.. " now that trump has made the world safe for democracy will you vote for him " that is exactly the way it`s works....polls have no meaning..these poll`s purpose is to get peoples minds wrapped the idea of voting for him..I totally get 100 greatest musicians BS...one magazine has a "poll" that says Hendrix was the best another Clapton with Segovia not metioned...it is the same here..some polls are more honest than others but this is crap...anybody who thinks trump is the most admired man in America is as deluded as was anyone who believed hitler was man of the year when he made the cover of time magazine cover in 1938 2600:1702:2340:9470:3892:3A4:6491:E4F6 (talk) 00:09, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose with caveats. The issue here isn't whether we personally think the poll is notable, the issue is sourcing. We should avoid putting too much focus on individual polls unless there's extensive secondary coverage that indicates that a poll is particularly important (not just bare mentions.) We have secondary coverage highlighting the historical significance and context of the initial 2017 poll and providing context for it, so it shouldn't be removed; what we should do is seek out comparable context for later polls rather than stabbing around in the dark. A quick search finds plenty of secondary coverage, so we should rely on that rather than citing Gallup directly. I would also perhaps condense the paragraph into a single sentence or two - it is worth a mention tracing the history, but not perhaps the weight of an entire paragraph. --Aquillion (talk) 21:51, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Removal of opinion polls in general without ideological or party breakdown of poll respondents. It's not exactly earth-shattering that Republicans admire Republicans and Democrats admire Democrats. The media can use these polls to lie and shape their narratives, but Wikipedia shouldn't engage in that brand of propaganda. Architeuthidæ (talk) 23:29, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose (responding to re-addressed ping). As said before, include until and unless all the weird negative trivial polls are pruned. It isn’t right to only allow negative polls, highlighting oddball momentary items like the 10th month or a July number that is oddly compared to a median. None of these seem very BLP or significant, nor does the section capture a good overview. Deleting only the category of “most admired” from it being the one that has a positive whiffs as a bit rotten, and worsens the general situation. The “most admired” seem of more enduring/repeated interest WEIGHT, BLP relevant, and overall significant than oddballs in the other paragraph. To delete just the “most admired” would put the article in a worse position of removing some of it’s higher-value bits here (and elsewhere where it helps give context) to wind up making an isolated section of less-meaningful ‘only criticisms, no matter how oddball’. That seems a POV flaw and also see the essay WP:CRITICISM about avoid having a criticism section. I also suspect that putting it in that position might eliminate motivation and make it harder to work out a larger solution re defining what belongs. So no, this shouldn’t be the first or only thing to cut. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Commentary on poll results and "Most..." lists, when they have any valid significance beyond fluff or propaganda, seem better suited to an article like Opinion polling on the Donald Trump administration. Lindenfall (talk) 17:59, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
@Lindenfall: Not really. Gallup didn't ask Americans their opinion on how the Trump administration was doing, they asked which man they admired the most. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:38, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • SupportAll polls are slanted..a head count at the inauguration and next day the woman`s march is a more accurate indicator although common sense will not be considered in this article 2600:1702:2340:9470:DC41:6CC8:CFB1:2234 (talk) 20:10, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Quoting Aquillion, The issue here isn't whether we personally think the poll is notable, the issue is sourcing. There's been extensive secondary coverage of the results of all three polls. Sources for first year results: ABC, Fortune, Bloomberg, Guardian, MNBC, Politico, TIME. Sources for second year results: Business Insider, NBC, ABC, BBC. Sources for third year results (the same ones I listed above),CBS, ABC, CNN, Politico, TIME, USA Today, Fox News. Since only the last edit has been "officially" objected to I went bold and updated the paragraph. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:21, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Just because you can reference it doesn`t mean it`s true 2600:1702:2340:9470:644C:5C87:ECB5:EFCB (talk) 16:14, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Post-expand include size limit exceeded

Today's additions to the play-by-play coverage of the impeachment proceedings caused the article to exceed the limit on post-expand include size, once again, breaking the {{Authority control}} template at the end of the article. Further additions to the article will break more templates at the end of the article. The problem will continue to plague us until Trump leaves office or we change our approach to this top-level biography, whichever comes first. I will leave the solution to those who have steadfastly resisted my repeated suggestions, since they clearly know what's best. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:42, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, seems I was the culprit - tried to rectify. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:29, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, but a longer term strategic solution is needed, not an endless series of stopgap fixes. You were a victim, not the culprit. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:48, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
" will leave the solution to those who have steadfastly resisted my repeated suggestions " why don`t you do it then ? 2600:1702:2340:9470:644C:5C87:ECB5:EFCB (talk) 16:21, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Trump's personal Twitter account

@Mandruss: When was the consensus reached, by RfC I assume? I've either missed it or forgotten about it? It may be time for a new one. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:34, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: You'll find that link in #Current consensus item 9, to which I linked in my edit summary. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Oops! Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:44, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
The RfC was three years ago (I've seen other editors revisiting closed RfC's much sooner). Quite a few of the arguments for an exception to the guideline no longer apply as Trump's Twitter use now has its own article and a section in this one (named Social media but it's all about Twitter). Also size wouldn't have been an issue back then. I don't know if there's any way to look up the size of the article in Jan 2017. Judging by the word count (50,000 back then, 64,000 now), it would have been around 325,000 bytes since it's close to 417,000 bytes now. Any comments on starting another RfC? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:17, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Since every entry in the page history shows the file size, you can determine the size at any time in the article's history. The article was 314,729 bytes at the moment that RfC was closed. You were close. But that external link consumes only 174 bytes including its hidden comment, so I'm not sure what you're getting at as to file size. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:28, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
I just noticed that we're linking to his Twitter accounts three times, twice to his personal Twitter account (in the infobox and under external links section) and once to his "Presidential Twitter" in the infobox. RfC consensus: There is consensus to include the link to the Twitter account as an exception to the guideline, but there is no consensus about including links to other social media accounts. I'd say the POTUS Twitter and one of the two personal links aren't covered by the consensus, no/yes? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:33, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
All I was getting at is that every little bit helps when you're close to the limit but I hadn't looked at how many bytes the links consume. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
The only hard limit is on post-expand include size, which is related to templates (and other transclusions) only. That external link does not use any templates. File size is an ongoing issue, but 174 bytes is an insignificant 0.04% of the current size. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:44, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 January 2020

Donald Trump is not the 45th president of the U.S. Donald Trump was the 45th president of the U.S. 12.159.248.133 (talk) 20:14, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. GaɱingFørFuɲ365 20:31, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Cadillac

@SPECIFICO: RE the automobile trivia that I added a couple of lifetimes ago (2018) when I was young and naive and found some of DT's past endeavors mildly amusing. Quoting one of the sources (WaPo): The love affair between Cadillac and Donald Trump peaked in the late 1980s, when they teamed up on a line of limousines called “the Trump Series.” The most luxurious model came with black, Italian-leather seats, aircraft sound insulation, a television and VCR, a cellular telephone, 24-karat-gold plating, a hidden safe and a paper shredder. The car stretched nearly 23½ feet long. “I’m very honored that they built me the first one,” Trump said, unveiling the Golden Edition in 1988, “and, frankly, I deserve it.” Sounds like a branding relationship to me, him providing the name and Cadillac everything else. Not that I have a problem with the removal. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:24, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I think it probably deserves a mention. I know people tend to get worked up about the article length, but back then, this was definitely substantial. With being the most controversial president in history, and being a public figure as long as he has, I understand we need to trim things. But this was definitely a branding deal, and something that helped to establish Trump’s public image. Incidentally, I think it also speaks as to how Trump was perceived back then. I support its restoration. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 21:35, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Actually, the sources do not call this a branding deal. There's no contemporaneous mainstream coverage of it, and at that time GM was big and Trump was a local urban poseur. This is not like the Ford Motor Company's Eddie Bauer or King Ranch co-branded pickup trucks. The sources describe an arrangement in which Trump (having not yet suffered the financial reversals that led to his later liquidity challenges) would purchase a small number of vehicles and then customize them, as is commonly done by coach-building shops that serve corporate and wealthy clients. But aside from that, this was not a noteworthy event either at the time or any other time until WaPo and others went over POTUS' entire life (including his hair with a fine-tooth comb. There are sub-articles that can include trivia and deep detail, but there's really no narrative that suggests this is significant or consequential in his life, IMO. SPECIFICO talk 22:23, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Autoweek saying "The Trump Golden Series was, in effect, designed for entrepreneurs like Trump with approximately the same taste in cars as Trump: an admittedly small circle of people" and WaPo calling it the "Trump line of limos" did make it sound as though this was a product for sale, although to a very limited group of the general public. Seems that this is the tale Trump spun in "Art of the Deal." According to a former Cadillac executive cited in GM Authority blog and Automotive News, Trump was going to purchase the entire line of 50 cars, a Cadillac limo to be built by a conversion company on Long Island … to transport high rollers from New York City to his hotel and casinos in Atlantic City and return. Live and learn - lifestyles of the ostentatiously and/or wannabe rich and famous, episode "Ridiculous Rides." Note to self: Keep digging. Always keep in mind that it's Trump and most likely a lie or an "enhanced" version of a half-truth. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:35, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 January 2020

Change "He became the oldest first-term U.S. president" to "He became the oldest to assume the U.S. presidency" as it is more grammatically correct and it allows you to remove the note 148.77.10.25 (talk) 20:36, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. I see nothing grammatically preferable in, or any increased clarity for, the request compared to the current statement. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

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

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

@Peregrine Fisher: It isn't really a template. It is a subpage of this Talk page that has been transcluded here. If you want that page, it is Talk:Donald Trump/Current consensus. Mgasparin (talk) 07:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Hey, I did some work for you. You may need to go through some of the archives to find the discussions which have led to the current article consensus, but the rest should be fine for you. Talk to me if you need more help. Yes, I know that this thread violates WP:NOTFORUM, I just didn't want to move it to my talk page and break the continuity. Mgasparin (talk) 07:14, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you so much! It seems to be working. If other people start using it and whatnot, and we have questions, I may hit you up. It takes a village! as Trump said! Peregrine Fisher (talk) 10:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Mgasparin (talk) 06:21, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 January 2020

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

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

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

There doesn't seem to be anything particularly significant about this property that would warrant special mention. The current text is accurate, notwithstanding later changes. SPECIFICO talk 00:40, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:29, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for mentioning The St. Regis Toronto, though. Fun read: In August 2013, close to six years after the start of construction, the building was incomplete. The "TRUMP" sign on the north side of the tower read "TRUM". Alas, nothing special, including the usual lawsuits. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:30, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

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

The references could be:
Trump Organization to check out from Toronto hotel, condo tower. The Star June 27, 2017 https://www.thestar.com/business/2017/06/27/trump-organization-to-check-out-from-toronto-hotel-condo-tower.html
InnVest hotels acquires former Trump Tower in Toronto. The Star June 29, 2017 https://www.thestar.com/business/2017/06/29/innvest-hotels-acquires-former-trump-tower-in-toronto.html Ian3060 (talk) 02:59, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
The current sentence shouldn't be changed as that's what happened in the late 2000s and early 2010s. I suppose we could add a sentence about the Panama and Toronto hotels having changed their names since Trump's election. The former Trump Panama Hotel and Ocean Club is the JW Marriott Panama now, after (what else) a legal battle. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:46, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Further discussion on hotel de-branding

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

I'm not particularly invested in this and don't much care one way or the other. We do have precedent of sorts, though, in the next paragraph: By 2018 only two consumer goods companies continued to license his name. If any more properties "un-brand," that would be a way to handle it. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:59, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
I think we should minimize this kind of content. Put it in The Trump Organization but not here. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:03, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Done. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:06, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Bragging about committing an impeachable offense?

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

That would need stronger secondary sourcing. Impeachment appears at two locations in the article, so if you have solid sourcing it would likely be a candidate either for the end of the lead or the end of the article as currently organized. SPECIFICO talk 19:49, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
The article says that "Rep. Val Demings (D-Fla.), one of the House impeachment managers tasked with arguing the case against Trump in the Senate, caught wind of Trump comments and immediately accused President Trump of confessing to and bragging about committing an impeachable offense." Obviously, Trump would disagree that he committed an impeachable offense. For WP to say he bragged about "committing an impeachable offense" would be highly POV. Station1 (talk) 20:04, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

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

There should be a 48-hour holding period. There’s not enough WEIGHT to include it yet, will have to wait and see if it’s more than a flash du jour. It seems more an item of just hyperbole rephrasing though — that there was refusal was already said and done, and Obstruction was already felt and is in the Articles of Impeachment. Of course the flip side is that most of the evidence against President Trump was volunteered *by* President Trump so it’s not like nothing was given. Anyway, it doesn’t seem like a new event or different position, it seems just someone’s take on today’s phrasing. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:32, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Please, no nonsense. most of the evidence against President Trump was volunteered *by* President Trump SPECIFICO talk 12:03, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Please stop imposing arbitrary editing standards on articles related to Trump and his associates. I agree that we should be diligent in vetting and weighing information, but at least a dozen editors have asked you to stop doing this. If it’s due, it’s due. No comment on the current information, but you’ve done this with most of the Singularly significant parts of his BLP as well. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 14:49, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
I strongly support an enforced waiting period on news, and that can be local to this article if necessary. "Historical" perspective is needed, even if only a few days of it, and experience clearly shows that fuzzy lines are completely ineffective for things like this. I think I once advocated a one-month waiting period. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and it matters not that some number of readers want it to be one. It matters even less that many editors really enjoy being amateur journalists, monitoring breaking news and seeking to reflect it in Wikipedia articles in near real time. This is not a fringe position, it's one held by many, many editors, and the fact that we haven't yet prevailed doesn't mean we have to keep quiet about it. Consensus can change, and there would be no way to know when it changed without bringing it up from time to time. Finally, nobody has "imposed" anything here. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:33, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
I’m actually not opposed to this idea. I’ve agreed with Mark a few times on this issue, based on the information being presented. My gripe was the imposition of this without consensus. I do think we might be tying our hands behind our own backs potentially with this on occasion (if accepted), and I definitely see a potential to abuse such a position. But in general, I don’t disagree that WP:NOTNEWS needs some clarification, or even an overhaul. The 24 hour news cycle and in particular, Trump’s habit of daily controversy, might necessitate this. As I said, the reason for my posting this comment is Mark’s insistence on this, after being asked to stop and raise it in the appropriate forums instead. Personally, I’d support some nuanced measure if proposed, but this shouldn’t be a standard reply to every edit request when it’s something critical of his presidency. It’s disproportionate. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 17:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

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

100% agree with what MelanieN has said. If everything of this nature went into the article, it would be not less than 100 times longer. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
It sounds completely relevant to me...he is being impeached..this is his response to the impeachment...for that matter how come he doesn`t have to testify ? 2600:1702:2340:9470:C0CB:B34E:3450:979F (talk) 20:03, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
How are mainstream sources describing this? There will always be "walking back" and "just joking" etc. but the video has been widely disseminated. SPECIFICO talk 20:08, 24 January 2020 (UTC)


Stronger sources are available.[7][8] QuackGuru (talk) 20:30, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Opinion statements to be purged

Hello,

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

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

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

All of those statements are well-sourced in the article; they are not statements of opinion, but statements of fact. --WMSR (talk) 04:02, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
That is also a summary of a section, which is a very short summary of this whole article (Veracity of statements by Donald Trump), where many RS document the fact that he lies constantly, far more than any other notable person every documented by fact-checkers. They have even been forced to create a new category of lies because of him, the "Bottomless Pinocchio". -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:55, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
User:Tallrugger The doubts on including of those opinions or partisan pushed POV and this phrasing of it was long debated, see the Current Consensus section #35 and search archives if you want all the other times brought up. You can put in a rfc to reconsider, but unless there’s something new to consider about that it seems a bad idea. And to be clear - the level of scrutiny and adversarial judgement plus counting is part of what’s unprecedented so the first-ever counting being the current record holder not surprising. But these are not “lies” per other consensus #22. p.s. Nobody really “forced” the Washington Post to invent a new cute name category, that seems likely done just to raise the coverage/sales. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 11:17, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
LOL, most of the sources in that section are the New York Times, Washington Post, and Los Angeles Times, all three of whom endorsed his opponent in the 2016 election. I don't know if Politico endorsed Hillary, but they've also made it clear they oppose Trump being President. I guess if we're going to insist on putting their opinions in Wikipedia's voice, then Wikipedia will suffer the same decline in credibility as the mainstream media in the US. That's if Wikipedia has ever been considered credible. AppliedCharisma (talk) 20:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
The endorsements were from the editorial pages. We wouldn't use such here. The cites made were not from editorials. These are highly regarded reliable sources. If you have a problem with these sources, take it to WP:RSN. O3000 (talk) 20:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Indeed. It is vital that people understand the "spectrum" of news. Typically, you get "reporting" of the news from beat reporters who just report the unvarnished facts, straightforward journalism where those facts are woven into a cohesive narrative based on the experience of the journalist, and editorial that could come from an editorial staff, a columnist, or a guest writer. ALL of these can appear in the same news outlet, and even if the editorial staff of that outlet "endorse" a particular candidate or party, that does not negate the quality and neutrality of the reporting and journalism from where the bulk of our reliable sourcing will come from, and even opinion can be used if properly attributed and treated with the appropriate weight. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:03, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Not the case here. There doesn’t seem to be such variations. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:19, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Huh? -- Scjessey (talk) 23:24, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

"Coordination" footnote in the lead

The lead includes this footnote:

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

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

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

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

What is your preference?

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

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

"The third president to be impeached" in the lead

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

Nah, not yet. See how it goes with the senate. PackMecEng (talk) 06:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
They don't have a say in whether he gets impeached. He's now impeached, like only three others. --Tataral (talk) 06:12, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Yup and it is in the lead. I do not agree that it needs to be the third sentence in the lead just yet. PackMecEng (talk) 06:14, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Obviously belongs in the lead. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 06:23, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
I agree it belongs in the lead.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:54, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Andrew Johnson's impeachment is mentioned in the fifth sentence of the lead. Bill Clinton's impeachment is also mentioned in the fifth sentence of the lead. Useful precedents to consider. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:01, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
You probably meant Andrew Johnson. And the Watergate scandal is mentioned in the first paragraph of Richard Nixon's article too, with most RS viewing the Watergate scandal as less serious than all the Trump–Russia/Ukraine scandals. --Tataral (talk) 08:24, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I have corrected "Jackson" to "Johnson". Sorry for the typo. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:38, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
The precedent is that Long afterwards it gets ‘fifth line and nothing else’ - Lead mentions the outcome and not the preceding steps. But I doubt people are ready to drop the lead para on Mueller and lead para on inquiry. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
This has to be in the lead, as it is one of the most significant things in this article. I support it. Minecrafter0271 (talk) 02:26, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion

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

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

I would support that wording as well. --Tataral (talk) 07:24, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
No, it doesn't belong in the first sentence. The opening line of Clinton's article doesn't say he was the second to be impeached.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:31, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
However, Andrew Johnson's article mentions his impeachment in the first paragraph. Trump's impeachment is more central to his legacy than Clinton's impeachment for a trivial issue which centered on him having extramarital relations (really, who cares?). Clinton was widely known for a range of other things, his whole presidency didn't revolve around Russia investigations, foreign interference and his impeachment (unlike Trump's impeachment for a much more serious issue, that has been a much more dominating feature of his presidency). Nobody accused Clinton of soliciting foreign interference of the main adversary of the U.S. in American democracy, of being a threat to democracy or abusing power. --Tataral (talk) 07:38, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Andrew Johnson's article mentions it in the first paragraph, not the first sentence. It's way too early to decide what Trump's legacy is and what has dominated his presidency (which looks set to continue for another four years). Clinton was impeached for "obstruction of justice". That is not trivial. However, he was acquitted. The issues of Whitewater, Monica Lewinsky etc did dominant his Presidency. People were accusing Clinton of everything, including mass murder.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:04, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
My proposal above was to mention it in the first paragraph, but not the first sentence. I'm fine with either alternative. It is not way too early to assess how the world views Donald Trump and his presidency. It has been extensively commented on for years, since 2016 (even the impeachment talk started in 2016). Clinton's presidency, as covered by international media, didn't revolve around impeachment and him being a grave threat to democracy; his impeachment was covered by international media as a curious event that resulted from a right-wing witch-hunt and over a trivial issue, late in his otherwise successful presidency. He was not accused of soliciting the interference of foreign countries against his own country. The Watergate scandal is mentioned in Richard Nixon's first paragraph too; many RS have commented on the fact that Trump's Russia and Ukraine scandals are far more serious than the Watergate scandal; it's telling that we have so many articles covering these related scandals that ultimately resulted in his impeachment, so it deserves a mention in the first paragraph (Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, Links between Trump associates and Russian officials, Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (January–June 2018), Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (July–December 2018), Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump, Impeachment of Donald Trump, Trump–Ukraine scandal etc.). --Tataral (talk) 08:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
No, you said you supported the wording above. You probably should be impeached yourself. It is not relevant what was not said about Clinton. Whether an impeachment is a witch-hunt or a crucifixion is not relevant here. Impeachment is a major event, but I don't see that Clinton is very different from Trump. I don't need a lecture from you about how the international media covered Clinton.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:38, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Untrue. I said I support that wording "as well" (as my own proposal above which included it in the third sentence). Both alternatives are fine with me. --Tataral (talk) 09:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
I'll support one brief sentence at the end of the first para due to the historic nature. He is the third U.S. president in history to have been impeached. That leaves a lot unsaid, and that's fine and quite appropriate for the first para; more detail in the last para of the lead, where it is now. I would struggle to find a sensible place for new content anywhere else above the last para. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:34, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I had in mind too: a very short mention in the first paragraph that briefly summarises/introduces the topic (the end of the first paragraph is fine with me), and more detail on the investigations and inquiries that ultimately led to his impeachment at the end of the lead section. --Tataral (talk) 09:33, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
A consensus in something more structured than this would be required to modify #Current consensus item 17. But we can discuss a bit more before taking the articles of edit proposal to the full House for a !vote. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:40, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
I would support a brief sentence in the first paragraph. I also think the impeachment should comprise the entire last paragraph of the lead (an edit I made yesterday, but was reverted.) The impeachment should not be lumped in with the Mueller investigation. - MrX 🖋 19:49, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Doesn’t belong in the first line, for now as the summary of the impeachment para is best. The alternative of Clinton precedent seems like it needs to *note* that precedent is ‘line 5 and nothing else’. No Mueller para and no inquiry para. Maybe further events and enough time has passed that we can focus on the endpoint and skip the steps, but my feeling is that we’re not there yet. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:31, 20 December 2019 (UTC)


Legal scholars differ on whether Trump has actually been impeached. Certainly, the House has approved articles of impeachment, but that is analogous to a prosecutor writing charges in a report. Until the accused is presented with those charges in court, the accused is not yet charged with a crime. Being charged with a crime happens at the same instant that the accused party's opportunity to defend himself commences, not when the prosecutor or grand jury write a report. Trump will certainly be impeached if the articles are delivered to the senate, but he is arguably not impeached at the moment. Given that impeachment is analogous to being charged with a crime, if this were a criminal case, Trump would not be charged at this point. He is probably not impeached at this point. The article should say the House has approved articles of impeachment and not that the president has been impeached.184.14.211.30 (talk) 19:23, January 8, 2020‎ (UTC)
Near as I can find, one legal scholar has offered this opinion and others have disagreed. That's not enough to suggest he isn't what all reliable sources say he is -- impeached. O3000 (talk) 20:39, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
USER: 184.14.211.30, that one scholar is wrong and all others have told him so. And you are wrong on many accounts. The House has approved articles of impeachment, but that is NOT analogous to a prosecutor writing charges in a report. It is like a Grand Jury where one is charged with a crime, filed charges. Impeachment means Trump has been charged. The Constitution says ONLY the House impeaches and ONLY the Senate holds trial. Trump has been impeached, the Constitution says nothing about sending the Articles to the Senate to make the POUTS impeached. Given that impeachment is analogous to being charged with a crime, if this were a criminal case, Trump would be charged at this point, awaiting trial. He is impeached at this point. The article should say the House has impeached, because he was. And you said, "Until the accused is presented with those charges in court, the accused is not yet charged with a crime". This is wrong too. You can get charged at any time, and you go to court to fight the charges. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:4040:129E:9200:6586:FE8:F8C8:4E92 (talk) 20:13, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Missing info

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

Discussion of this point was already in progress below when you posted this. Let's keep all of that in one place, please. I see you've already commented there. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
You forgot amash, and the only reason that happened is that disappointingly every single republican is corrupt. Who voted for what doesn't belong in the lead at all,anyway.  Nixinova   T   C   01:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
The better phrasing would be “On almost entirely partisan lines”. It would be misportrayal to call this bipartisan, the partisan nature is what should be mentioned more. The partisan nature has WEIGHT as the first and most common thing said about the vote. The few who didn’t vote with their party are mentioned, but as side points. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:43, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Almost every single vote is along partisan lines now, so the fact that the impeachment is the same is unremarkable. No mention of how the vote went is necessary or significant for this article. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Scjessey, It's very much remarkable considering past impeachments. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 14:18, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
@May His Shadow Fall Upon You: Let me give you some fuller context to explain my view, if you'll allow me to indulge myself with something that might sound a little FORUMy. Past impeachments have happened when bipartisanship was the norm and there was less vote whipping. "Crossing the aisle" wasn't just common, it was considered statesmanlike. But since 9/11 and the horrible Patriot Act, the nation has become increasingly polarized and that has been reflected in more and more partisanship in government. Each new administration has seen the intensity of partisanship increase, with Mitch McConnell's obstruction of Barack Obama being the most dramatic example. Now we have reached a point where Republican lawmakers are united in defending the indefensible. Acts by a POTUS that previously would've shocked lawmakers of any political persuasion are now defended as perfectly normal. In short, it has become completely normal for votes to fall along party lines, and the impeachment of Trump is just another in a long line of such votes. Such votes are remarkable when taken in the historical context of impeachments, but not at all remarkable when taken in the contemporary context of the way business is done in Congress today. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:54, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Scjessey, I can respect your opinion but this is exactly the kind of editorializing that we're supposed to avoid. We should not omit (or include) information because it does not represent an editor's POV. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 19:29, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
It's not editorializing if it's on a talk page. Reliable sources do not think the "partisan vote" for impeachment is remarkable, and I'm giving you my reasons why I agree with that. The decision about exclusion or inclusion should be based on reliable sources, and on consensus. I would never dream of trying to impose my personal view upon a Wikipedia article. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:16, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
I vote for sticking to what reliable sources think, and skipping the part about why you agree with that. Your instinct about FORUM was spot on (you have good instincts) and you should have listened to that instinct in my opinion. (I'll resist the urge to go all meta about our very selective and inconsistent enforcement of NOTFORUM.) ―Mandruss ☎ 01:17, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
You're right. I'll shut up now. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:32, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
He was impeached. Whether a minority consisting of his own (far-right & white nationalist) party supported his impeachment doesn't matter. --Tataral (talk) 14:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Impeachment in the first paragraph proposal A

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

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

  • That is not reflective of the sourcing. By the vast majority of reliable sources, this is the 3rd president to be impeached. ValarianB (talk) 19:36, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Sort of agree, but more in the sense of how to word it -- it seems incorrect to say the impeachment happened in December when the date impeachment vote 2 is taken and the articles actually signed are in January 2020. Do we say impeached in December thru January ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:25, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Keep this where it is, at the end of the lead section: it is the latest thing that happened in Trump's life, so chronologically consistent with the lead's biographical approach. — JFG talk 08:48, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support First paragraph, as following Johnson and Clinton. ValarianB (talk) 19:36, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support For consistency with the articles of the only other two presidents to be impeached—Clinton and Johnson. Per WP:LEAD, the first paragraph "should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it." Obviously Trump's impeachment establishes the context for his life far more so than being a television personality. - MrX 🖋 12:12, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support proposal per nom and MOS:LEADPARAGRAPH. I'd prefer to see the "third" aspect mentioned there rather than later in the intro. Sdkb (talk) 07:37, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - I now agree that "in history" is superfluous. It seems highly unlikely editors are particularly attached to those two words, and unlikely it will affect any existing !votes, so I have stricken the words from the proposed text. If the proposal passed including the two words, another discussion and consensus would be required to remove them. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:40, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think this discussion is problematic. It would be better to wait and see. If Trump is convicted, he will be removed from the presidency. That certainly belongs in the first paragraph — in fact, the first sentence. However, if he is acquitted, the issue is far less important. It is hard at this point to judge the importance of impeachment in the context of Trump's life, particularly as the verdict hasn't come in. The comparison with Clinton and Johnson is inapposite. Both of their articles have solid opening paragraphs, and impeachment is mentioned later. Trump currently only has two sentences in his opening paragraph. As far as I can see, the proposed text is:Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current president of the United States. Before entering politics, he was a businessman and television personality. He is the third U.S. president to have been impeached. This is really repetitive and jumbled. It isn't like Clinton and Johnson, so it isn't consistent at all.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:17, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
    He will be acquitted, and the impeachment will still be historic. That's objective, provable, and indisputable fact, and in my view enough to include one sentence in the first paragraph. (And this argument does not rest on Clinton's and Johnson's first paragraphs, per my general opposition to whataboutism. It stands independent from other Wikipedia content.) Whether the issue is far less important, on the other hand, is a subjective matter of political perspective. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
    What do you mean "historic"? We're back to the baseball card. He's the 45th president and the third to be impeached, the oldest first-term president, the first with no government experience, the first to be disendorsed by his own party prior to election, and the first to set foot in North Korea. Is impeachment of presidents rare? Two out of the last four presidents have been impeached. Nixon would have been impeached if he hadn't resigned. So three presidents have faced impeachment in my lifetime. Historic? Hmmm... maybe not. If he is actually convicted, it will obviously be far more important because it will terminate his presidency. We will have to say that he was the president from 2017 until he was impeached and removed in 2020. That has to be in the first sentence. If he is acquitted, it will probably not adversely affect his presidency, as Clinton wasn't adversely affected. Historic? It's hard to know how Trump will be remembered. Perhaps for his TV work.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support The articles for Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton all have mention of impeachment (or resignation, in the case of Nixon) in the first paragraph. John Link (talk) 05:56, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

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

Your comment failed to point out that we're talking only about links to sources in citations, not open prose, so I'll do so for the benefit of editors who don't closely track the article's page history for context.
I don't have said problems with distractions and mistaken clicks, so I guess we cancel each other out on that. I much prefer a single convention for all, for reasons including the beauty of simplicity. To sustain the selective treatment you suggest, there would have to be some way of communicating it to other editors – which sources are obscure enough to link? – and I wouldn't know how to do that. Are we going to create a pinned "Link only these sources" section on this page? And then there would be occasional disagreements about whether a source is obscure enough to link, and I don't feel the issue warrants that time expenditure. Awaiting other comments. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
I didn't notice you also mass-removed the WaPo links, so I only restored the NYT ones. I'll hold off on WaPo until this discussion reaches some kind of resolution. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
My guess is that you can go ahead now. I doubt there'll be much, if any, interest in this, and I can always try to get more sleep . Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:58, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Hey, you started the discussion. I have a terrible success rate at predicting what will interest Wikipedia editors, so I'll wait at least a few days. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:03, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Dr. Bornstein copyedit reverted

In this diff a little copyedit was reverted with two baseless rationales given in the edit summary: 1- that Trump Organization attorney Alan Garten and bodyguard Keith Schiller (the same Schiller whom POTUS dispatched to dispatch FBI Director Comey) were not Trump employees, and 2- that according to Bornstein the removal of Trump's original medical records was not forcible. In addition to the cited NBC news reference, there were many contemporaneous accounts of the incident and Bornstein's statements. [9] [10] [11]. Unless I'm missing something here, I'm inclined to reinstate more or less the wording that was reverted. SPECIFICO talk 17:53, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Sources are pretty clear on the matter. WMSR (talk) 18:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • No, as said in the edit, the sources do not support the prior content. It really should have the word “alleged” as is on BBC coverage of it, along with the Sarah Sanders remarks other version of events, but it also seems trivial enough and low WEIGHT to just delete entirely. Keep it at the less sensationalized wording per WP:BLP guidance to have restraint, or else attribute it as an “Bornstein made the unsupported allegation”. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:51, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Mr. Bassett, the whole thing is Bornstein's view both in the sources and the WP text, in both "your" version and my edit. So that's irrelevant. But the sourcing about employees is clear in all the RS cited. Sanders did not deny it, just a garden variety deflection "we always do the right thing". Please reread all the sources and the comments in this talk thread. Next time maybe voice yourself here before three days no dissent has passed. Perhaps you will have a change of heart or mind. SPECIFICO talk 20:08, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
p.s. (edit conflict) The line had been changed back by SPECIFICO, and I’ve returned it to the User:JFG version. Again, follow cites and skip sensational, or provide attribution and caveats, maybe not those cites alone, or best yet just delete. as trivia. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:15, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
I changed it back because, after waiting 3 days for other views, none was put forth. One other editor commented to agree with my explanation for the edit that JFG reverted. Then you reinstated the old text without any response on talk to my question whether anyone disagreed with my assessment of the text and sources. And now you have still not replied to my initial statements, just repeated the fact that you edited the article. Which we already knew. Maybe you could try explaining why you think the source(s) required your revert? That would be more helpful than repeating a challenged claim that they do not. Cheers SPECIFICO talk 23:08, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
I put in my disagreement, and then discovered you hadn’t waited to reinstate... so I then returned it to JFG version pending a longer period for discussion, and pinged JFG. Though I think it’s low-weight trivia that could be / should be cut, meanwhile the sources just don’t WP:V support such language. Neither source says force was used or that the Doctor said it was. The saying force was used is a bit WP:EXTREME, and needing better sources, especially when WP:BLP asks us to show restraint. The CBS source really is nothing, it just supports NBC had reported the Doctor said something and that the Doctor neither confirmed nor denied it when CBS tried to get confirmation. The NBC source says the Doctor said many things including “raid”, “rape” and “robbed”, and reversing his positions of prior interviews. So it all looks to be just hyperbole and a bit of a miff, and other sources such as BBC just don’t follow or support the NBC story. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:26, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
American sources are more reliable for American events. In any case, an employee of the White House is likely to defend its occupant. On this topic, Sanders is certainly not a RS (notwithstanding the fact that she is a liar); NBC is. --WMSR (talk) 06:03, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Mr. Bassett, your statement would make any politician's press secretary proud. Deflection, straw man, soundbite. Nobody has suggested this article use many things including “raid”, “rape” and “robbed” in this article. Please follow the weight of RS reporting and the article text, if you still wish to justify your view. SPECIFICO talk 15:34, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
I mention those as it shows the language being hyperbolic and emotional when such clearly non-factual words were used, especially when the reporter distanced themself as to the credibility by putting them in quotes. Markbassett (talk) 18:16, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Unfortunately, that argument is nonsense. NY Times, NBC, Washington Post, BBC et al do not use scare quotes to disparage the subjects of their reporting. And they certainly do not expand on those reports and report on the reports if they find them insignificant. As one Pulitzer winner said, "Attribution baby, it's what's for dinner." Cheers. SPECIFICO talk 18:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Well, one might put into the article that 'Bornstein said he was raped', but the proper convey of the cite would be 'he said he felt "raped" '-- that is if you want the story to appear ridiculous and not credible. In any case, the sources do not say forced to turn over the papers so that part is still not passing V. In any case, I think the topic of the thread is done and no 'forced' is not corect. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:40, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
The use of force is not in the one more flamboyant piece, so that wording for the article just does not pass WP:V. Regardless of dissing BBC coverage which discounts the tale, and White House saying other things which NPOV would require included, this cites just one source and does not reflect wider coverage. And even NBC was reporting the interview as if the wording of Bornstein not very credible. Though I still think mostly delete - a lightly covered one interview went oddly accusatory and the unsupported allegations have not been repeated, with Little WEIGHT and no enduring or BLP significance. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Impeachment trial reversion

I believe the original edit that was reverted:

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

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

  • Trim/delete that bit. This one has confused the sequence and I think should cut off the speculative OR ending. Either version seems OK if not great at conveying/explaining the defense position, up until it says "Their reasoning has been rejected by legal scholars and by Attorney General Bill Barr" as if the Jan 2020 Trump defense is being responded to by a 2019 petition and a 2018 Barr letter on different topics. Clearly, neither of those could have been rejecting a months-later Trump defense.
The defense position is “House Democrats’ novel conception of ‘abuse of power’ as a supposedly impeachable offense is constitutionally defective,” they wrote. “It supplants the framers’ standard of ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ with a made-up theory that the president can be impeached and removed from office under an amorphous and undefined standard of ‘abuse of power.’”
We don't need to include revisionist history that views irony that Barr had seemed to write against this or that a petition three months before it did so. There are direct reviews of the defense and it's legal chances, go to those and skip the mangled interpretations. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:38, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Too specific and a bit biased

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

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

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

A special counsel investigation led by Robert Mueller found that Trump and his campaign welcomed and encouraged Russian foreign interference in the 2016 presidential election under the belief that it would be politically advantageous, but did not find sufficient evidence to press charges of criminal conspiracy or coordination with Russia. Mueller also investigated Trump for obstruction of justice, and his report neither indicted nor exonerated Trump on that count. A 2019 House impeachment inquiry found that Trump solicited foreign interference in the 2020 U.S. presidential election from Ukraine to help his re-election bid and then obstructed the inquiry itself. The inquiry reported that he withheld military aid and a White House invitation in order to influence Ukraine to publicly announce investigations into his political rivals." Wilsonahrens (talk) 12:10, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Edit_requests, the edit request facility is for requesting specific edits. For more general comments, simply use the "New section" link at the top of this page. I have converted this thread to such a discussion and assigned a somewhat arbitrary heading "Too specific and a bit biased", which you may modify to something better. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:44, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
I agree with your comments about being too specific (which I have called "too detailed"), particularly as regards his presidency. Feel free to suggest specific improvements to what you consider biased wording. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:47, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
BTW, the edit request facility is also only for uncontroversial edits; i.e. edits that no reasonable editor would contest. Aside from basic grammar and spelling, there isn't much you could change in this article that would be predictably uncontroversial. He is an inherently controversial topic. Thus there isn't much use for the edit request facility at this article. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
@Wilsonahrens: I should have pinged you yesterday when I changed this section heading. This is the belated ping in case you haven't found the renamed thread. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Impeachment and Impeachment trial

Onetwothreeip wrote in their edit summary that the heading "Should at least be a subheading," no reason given. A report by the Congressional Research Service for members and committees of Congress explains that impeachment and trial are both equal parts of the process to remove a president from office (quote is on page 5): Although the term “impeachment” is commonly used to refer to the removal of a government official from office, the impeachment process, as described in the Constitution, entails two distinct proceedings carried out by the separate houses of Congress. First, a simple majority of the House impeaches—or formally approves allegations of wrongdoing amounting to an impeachable offense, known as articles of impeachment. The articles of impeachment are then forwarded to the Senate where the second proceeding takes place: an impeachment trial. If the Senate, by vote of a two-thirds majority, convicts the official of the alleged offenses, the result is removal from office of those still in office, and, at the Senate’s discretion, disqualification from holding future office. [1]

References

  1. ^ Cole, Jared P.; Garvey, Todd (October 29, 2015). "Impeachment and Removal" (PDF). Congressional Research Service. Retrieved January 25, 2020.

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

I absolutely think "impeachment" should be a single level 2 heading. If you want to separate the impeachment from the trial, do it via subheadings. I'm going to go ahead and implement that right now. I also think there is way too much detail in the impeachment process section and it could be trimmed by about half, but I'll hold off for further comment on that. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:48, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Huh? This is what started the chain of edits: [12], [13]. But good to know that somebody is in charge around here. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:54, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Space4Time, do us all a favor and use diffs when you want to talk about somebody's edit. You like to link to the entire previous page, which a) takes a long time to load for such a big article and b) doesn't show what the change was or who made it, so doesn't really illustrate whatever point you were trying to make. In other words I have no idea what you were trying to say. Do you have a problem with the edits I made? Were they in violation of some previous or longtime or consensus version? Did I jump into the middle of an edit war? I am willing to revert if I was in violation of any standard or DS rule. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:26, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought I was linking to the diff. I copied the links above the editor's summaries; I see now that I need to copy the URL in the address bar: [14], [15]. I wouldn't call it an edit war, but there was some back and forth with different editors, and it looked to me like you were making a peremptory decision. Since one of my two acceptable solutions was a level 2 heading with separate subheadings for the impeachment and the trial, I don't have a problem with that, although I would have preferred different titles. I do think your explanation isn't quite correct. "Impeachment and removal" ([16]) is the process set up by the Constitution. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:21, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
(If you click on those links, they go to that date's version of the entire page, rather than the diff. I see now that I need to copy the URL in the address bar It's much easier than that. When you are looking at the article history, just click the "prev" link in front of the edit you want to link to. That leads you to the diff; use its URL. Want a diff for a series of edits? Use the round buttons to choose the sequence you want, then click "compare selected revisions" and use its url.) I'm sorry I butted into the middle of a back-and-forth about how to handle this, but I gather you are OK with the way I did it? You're absolutely right about the constitution; thanks for fixing it. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:03, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I'M OK with it. It's the logical way for formatting it. And thanks for the info on making it easier to complain about edits. I'm gonna paste it to my desktop; it'll probably come in handy soon enough. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:58, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 February 2020

Have a non-biased view! The Majority of this Wiki is negative towards President Trump, compared to Obama's angelic Wiki. Get it together. 73.82.86.225 (talk) 15:00, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

What he said 2600:1702:2340:9470:1589:F964:FAEA:AC97 (talk) 00:41, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

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

Slight consensus supporting the proposed change in wording so that the sentence in question mentions only one political rival. Some editors proposed mentioning Joe or Hunter Biden explicitly, so further discussion may be required to determine if either of them should named directly or simply referred to as "a political opponent". Even so, it is clear that the consensus supports the proposition. Mgasparin (talk) 08:10, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

to: 

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

- MrX 🖋 13:05, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Previous discussions:

Original edit: [17] - MrX 🖋 13:14, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

  • MrX: Maybe it would be better to hold off on this until the impeachment wording proposals have been archived or one of them has been adopted (in which case this RfC will be moot)? There hasn't been much interest but that may be due to the holiday season. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
@Space4Time3Continuum2x: I considered that, but the wording proposals discussion is not really progressing and this minor wording dispute seems to be a hot topic. We just need to get a few more editor opinions to tip the scales one way or the other. 14:23, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Survey

  • SINGULAR - as said before, Joe Biden is just one rival and WP should not give bad info of saying plural rivals. The impeachment articles say “A political opponent,” singular, and the earlier discussion was Starship.paint proposing “one of Trump’s political rivals” so it just looks like a typo happened, just needs a fix. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:27, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • No - per my comments and the 16 sources at Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 109#One or several political opponents?. As is evident from both the current and proposed text, this is about the impeachment inquiry, not the impeachment articles. Trump pursued investigations on two vectors: Joe Biden/Hunter Biden, and the DNC (and by extension Hillary Clinton) via the CrowdStrike conspiracy theory.- MrX 🖋 21:58, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • No The text refers to the bipartisan Congressional investigation, not the wording of the Impeachment resolution. That reference was decided in the extensive discussions of this brief paragraph and it is appropriate. It gives a succinct but broad factual description of the conclusions of the investigation rather than a reference to the crafted legal language of the impeachment document. SPECIFICO talk 23:54, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Remove the sentence - I don't actually see the need for this sentence. It is essentially an elaboration on the previous sentence. Given that this is the lead, and only a brief summary is necessary, why not leave these specifics to the body of the article? -- Scjessey (talk) 16:02, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Acceptable to me - events have moved on so can cut what was an intermediate conclusion. Not sure people are ready, but think it will eventually get cut anyway as more arrives. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:25, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Would you please stick to the question asked in the RfC? We have already reached a consensus on this sentence and there is an ongoing straw poll about the impeachment content in the lead. Right now, we're trying to resolve simple dispute involving two words. Do you have a view on that specific dispute? - MrX 🖋 16:29, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, my view is this a Request for Comment, not an A or B choice. In RfCs, additional proposals are encouraged, not discarded. If you insist on pinning me down to the binary choice, I lean toward the singular "rival" as a matter of fact. Nevertheless, I would prefer to eliminate the sentence completely as it is superfluous. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:13, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
RfC is a simply worded question, exactly what MrX has posted here. I'm not sure what you're referring to about free range comments, but that is 1) the way things often get derailed, and 2) kind of ridiculous when the question is simply to stop an edit war by confirming that the lead "rivals" should conform to the amply referenced article text "rivals". Yes, we'll get a certain number of wrong answers from folks who don't bother to read the article, but I know you are not in that category. Please give it a think or two. SPECIFICO talk 18:34, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
I didn't say anything about "free range comments". MrX insisted on a binary choice, but I pointed out that WP:RFC says there's nothing wrong with additional proposals, such as those I have suggested. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:31, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Would it be more accurate to say "cage free comments"? [FBDB] - MrX 🖋 13:52, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes It was just Biden, singular.HAL333 21:49, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes. Opponent singular is a more accurate statement. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:38, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, singular – As I wrote in my initial edit summary:[18] If we're not gonna name Biden (per talk page opposition), at least let's not mislead readers into thinking Trump requested investigations of several "political rivals": there's just one. Also, "opponent" is more neutral language and a traditional description of contenders in presidential races. I stand by this rationale. Trump is not getting impeached for mentioning the Clinton email server, but for asking Ukraine to investigate the Bidens. The official articles of impeachment say exactly that, page 3, lines 20-21: A political opponent, former Vice President Joseph R. Biden. Jr. — JFG talk 05:51, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Remove the sentence - Not that I care much whether this particular sentence is included or not, but since someone decided to bring it up, the inclusion of the sentence is an excessive amount of detail that's better served in Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump. The lead section doesn't need to mention every nook and cranny about the impeachment. I think removing this particular sentence will reinforce the unspoken rule that lead sections should only describe the subject in a nutshell—not include large amounts of very small details. In other words, don't bury the lead.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 10:01, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, singular. The previous sentence referred to the interference in the 2020 U.S. presidential elections. The target - based on media reports - was Biden. There were no other identified rivals this election cycle tied to the Ukraine incident. Darwin Naz (talk) 23:59, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Singular - It was Biden. Bacondrum (talk) 00:36, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Saying that Trump demanded Ukraine investigate a political rival (singular) is just as wrong as saying that he demanded they investigate political rivals (plural)–plenty of sources for either version–which is why I think this RfC shouldn't have been started in the first place. Since we're (well, JFG is, actually) quoting the impeachment articles, the official articles of impeachment also say (page 3, lines 22-25) that he corruptly solicited the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations into ... (B) a discredited theory promoted by Russia that Ukraine-rather than Russia-interfered in the 2016 United States Presidential election which is why I am opposed to the current wording of the sentence, singular or plural. As USA Today put it: The Democratic-led House approved 230-197 the first article of impeachment accusing Trump of abusing his power by asking Ukrainian officials to announce investigations that would benefit his reelection. We should finish what we started with the impeachment wording proposals or start a new RfC along those lines. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:30, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
  • YES- If there are multiple "rivals", can anyone name just one? (Besides Biden) or better yet just remove the sentence since the lead is bloated enough as it is. Rusf10 (talk) 20:43, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes Singular, it was just one opponent Dartslilly (talk) 21:29, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Remove the sentence since the lead is bloated enough as it is. and YES singular if it stays in all current discussion is about Joe Biden RonaldDuncan (talk) 16:04, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
  • No; use plural, as he also asked for investigations into the Crowdstrike conspiracy (and Clinton/DNC by extension), and also tried to somehow damage Yovanovich (per newly released evidence). Even if there was only one "target" (seems there were at least two), there was still collateral damage. --WMSR (talk) 00:14, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • No. Trump demanded that Ukraine investigate a current potential rival and a former one by trying to make Ukraine claim falsely that they — not Russia — interfered in the 2016 election to help boost Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. ... The Russian Embassy in Washington declined to address whether Putin told Trump that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 campaign, saying only that information about the two leaders’ conversations is available on the Kremlin’s website. Quotes from WaPo. Other sources: Politico, NYT, NBC. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:29, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete, alternatively Yes Biden hasn't yet competed against Trump, so still only a hypothetical rival. But given his intent to challenge for the presidency, he loosely counts as one opponent, not multiple. Clinton was a rival, but not even a hopeful when this went down. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:04, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Name Hunter Biden (first choice), or use singular. Unaware of any political opponents other than Biden who are involved. Adoring nanny (talk) 00:54, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • No per Mr. X and others. Wanted investigations into multiple people.Casprings (talk) 02:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete, alternatively Yes - Now that it is going to the senate the original inquiry is too much depth for the lead. But if we are going to include it, it should be singular to reflect the actual charges the inquiry produced. PackMecEng (talk) 00:50, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Directly state Biden - one single name isn't enough to bring too much detail to a lead, and explicitly stating "political rival/opponent" creates a negative connotation that could go against WP:NPOV. People know that Joe Biden is running against Trump and will be able to decide on their own whether the event was tied to his role as a political opponent.Jancarcu (talk) 19:57, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

@Markbassett: - As you know, I am pleased to praise your contributions when they are grounded thoughtful consideration of the reliable sources. But your repeated insistence (in this and previous threads) on this dreary but significant detail of wording denies both the sources and the long-agreed context of this little sentence. The text in dispute refers to the bipartisan Congressional investigation, NOT the Impeachment document. Have you read about the inquiry report and associated sources? As many editors have demonstrated and agreed and cited, the primary and secondary sources relating to that investigation -- dozens of which are available via links on this website -- conclusively demonstrate a settled factual narrative. It involves not just the Bidens, but also the Crowdstrike/Democratic National Committee conspiracy theories and --yes -- the Clintons.[1][2]
Markbassett, after all the grief and edit-warring and hard work MrX has done researching a reading list for holdouts on the "only the Bidens" bit, I frankly don't think it's OK for any editor here to claim this is all due to a typo. I cannot imagine editors going to the trouble of all this research and repetitive discussions with a few holdouts over an undiscovered typographical error. Please review the documents and reconsider your view on the RfC question. Cheers. SPECIFICO talk 23:54, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

User:SPECIFICO Don’t be silly - the 11 Dec thread had Starship proposing “one of” Trump’s rivals, singular; the inquiry reports a single Joe Biden; the later impeachment articles say “a political opponent” singular; the article text this is summarizing has a single opponent ”to investigate Democratic Presidential candidate Joe Biden and his son Hunter” .... Anything other than singular is factually and by WEIGHT incorrect, but “one of” is not present, so it just looks like a typo on entry. Are you thinking there’s any explanation other than typo for why the Starship proposal did not get entered as discussed circa 11 Dec  ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:22, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
@Markbassett: cc: @SusanLesch and HAL333: This is the lead we're talking about. The sentence referes to the findings of the House Intelligence Committee investigation, not the articles of impeachment. This lead sentence is summarizing the following sentence from the article text: The inquiry reported that he withheld military aid and a White House invitation in order to influence Ukraine to publicly announce investigations into his political rivals. The final word is plural, "rivals." Are you suggesting the lead summarize the word "rivals" with the word "rival"? SPECIFICO talk 21:36, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Surely, that's fine. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:31, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
That is a singular approach to language. Thanks for your reply. SPECIFICO talk 23:54, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
@SPECIFICO: cc: @SusanLesch and HAL333: Yes, use the singular “rival”, or “opponent”. There is only one opponent Joe Biden, and as said before factually and by WEIGHT singular is correct. I don’t know where in the inquiry report you are looking, but I find singular, singular, singular so singular is what is strongly supported:
  • Preface of it Pg 8 says “solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, to benefit his re-election.” And “including one into President Trump’s domestic political opponent.” (note the singular “opponent”).
  • Then pg 9 “to harm the election prospects of a political rival,” (note the singular “rival”).
  • Then page 10, quoting President Trump, “the Bidens”. (Hunter is not a political opponent, but you can say plural about Bidens)
  • Then page 12 the Executive Summary para 1 says “investigations into a political rival that he apparently feared the most, former Vice President Joe Biden,” and later pg 12 again “Joe Biden”(note the singular “a” and “Joe”)
  • Then Section I page 13 “Joe Biden”, page 14 “Vice President Biden’s role”, “Vice President Biden”, etcetera etcetera
  • Page 21 “the political benefit Trump would derive from their announcement and the cloud they might put over a political opponent”. (note the singular “opponent”)
Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Vogel, Kenneth P.; Schmidt, Michael S. (October 3, 2019). "Trump Envoys Pushed Ukraine to Commit to Investigations". The New York Times. Retrieved October 6, 2019.
  2. ^ Jaffe, Greg; DeBonis, Mike (November 7, 2019). "Trump's demands of Ukraine came down to three words: 'Investigations, Biden and Clinton,' official's testimony states". Washington Post. Retrieved November 12, 2019.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
Please do not your enthusiasm to prematurely dive into an RfC prevent you from seeing the alternative I put forward in the earlier discussion thread:

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

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

Scjessey, that word "opposition" just begs the question. We need to write the most explicit text possible, to reflect clear sources. An encyclopedia should not be an ink-blot test. SPECIFICO talk 14:22, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Nonsense. This is just a summary for the lead. It is fully explained in the body of the text, and that is perfectly sufficient. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:25, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Same problem. I can't tell why you're calling it sufficient nonsense. Yes, the article text does state "rivals" in the plural. But Trump's repeated asks regarding the Crowdstrike/DNC/Clinton conspiracy theories are not "fully explained" in this article. Never mind. We have an RfC. SPECIFICO talk 15:33, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
I’m having a bit of a difficult time parsing Mark’s comment. i.e., “anything other than singular”. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 10:31, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
User:Symmachus Auxiliarus There are several singular phrasings - “one of” his rivals, “a political opponent”, “Joe Biden”, “a rival” ... so any phrasing about political rival/opponent other than something singular just looks like a typo. If there is some explanation other than typo for not not using the phrase discussed circa 11 Dec but instead calling Joe Biden “political rivals” (plural) ... I’m not seeing it. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:07, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
At least 16 highly reliable sources disagree with you. - MrX 🖋 12:04, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Pfft. As hundreds of thousands and *millions* of cites agree with me on singular "Joe Biden", "a political rival" or "one of his political opponents", including what seems all the official and prominent items, plus the simple fact is Joe Biden is not multiple opponents ... I’m inclined to not be impressed that someone was able to find 16 (?) odd pluralisms. I’m notably *not* seeing cites name more than one political rival or give other info supporting/explaining a plural ‘rivals’. There actually are a lot more than just 16 such, but regardless - factually and by WEIGHT, singular is what should be used. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 11:34, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Markbassett, anyone who ever bothers to look at your googlefest links will see that they are about everything from the Senator Biden's view on the Clinton impeachment to the Bide-a-Wee home for cat rescue. Whoever volunteers to close this RfC is going to understand that we're talking about lead text to represent the article text in the investigations section -- that is plural -- and that the sentence in question refers to the findings of the Intelligence Committee investigation, not the impeachment document. And so, your remarks and all the others that merely state personal opinions about reflecting your general sense of the matter or that ignore relevant sourced narratives on the identified topic of this sentence will be disregarded. So for your sake, I hope you and the other singular folks will please state some view that supports your preference while also addressing the matter that's on the table here. Cheers. SPECIFICO talk 17:22, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
I already gave (7th para in Threaded discussion) 10 places those findings said singular. As to the rest, I think for WEIGHT they’ll look more at the serious items saying singular - basically the inquiry report, even the Republican pre-rebuttal, all major media outlets, many scholars, that singular is continued for the impeachment articles, that singular “one of his political rivals” was the 11 December thread, and maybe even the logic that Joe Biden simply is singular just one ‘political rival’ so it’s the only thing that makes sense. The googlefest with dozens and thousands of serious hits is just to show that MrX declaring 16 is really naming a trivial number to anyone with access to Google. Whether folks want to compare raw googlecounts, including cats on both sides, is up to them - it’s not precise, but large differences are viewable as significant despite any impurities. (There are only so many Cat homes.). Meow Markbassett (talk) 05:38, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

AIDS Epidemic

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

The WaPo source supports what Trump has pledged and doesn't necessarily need to touch on his false assertion about Obama, which the other two sources do, even though WaPo kinda does anyway: "The administration’s plan follows a 2010 HIV/AIDS strategy that the Obama administration devised and updated five years later." The edit is worthy of inclusion. soibangla (talk) 17:22, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Pack, your "without discussion" is gratuitousstruck. Same could gratuitously have been said of your revert. :). SPECIFICO talk 17:50, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Okay, struck. PackMecEng (talk) 17:51, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

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

  • EXCLUDE - UNDUE trivia, delete rather than adding the mentions above. And shouldn’t have cited somebody’s tweet per WP:RS/SPS. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:20, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
  • That's extremely old news, and it's just words, plus one more example of Trump's Obama obsession as exhibited by another lie, so undue weight. What's more important is that the Trump administration rolled out a plan 2 months ago that–according to experts–won't work. It would provide free or reduced-cost drugs to 200,000 uninsured people (out of 1.8 million in need of them), but would not provide free medical appointsments, lab tests, and continuing care which are all needed for these people to be able to get access to the drugs, assuming that they are even aware of the program, know how to ask for PrEP medication, and have access to a clinic. Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar estimated that about 200,000 uninsured people would be eligible for the free medication after they test negative for HIV and receive a prescription.

[1][2][3]

References

  1. ^ Kane, Jason (May 14, 2019). "What Trump's PrEP deal means for the spread of HIV". PBS News Hour. Retrieved January 30, 2020.
  2. ^ Wen, Leana S. (December 9, 2019). "Making HIV drugs free doesn't help people with no access". The Washington Post. Retrieved January 30, 2020.
  3. ^ Bernstein, Lennie (December 4, 2019). "Trump administration pushes efforts to wipe out HIV amid stalled progress". The Washington Post. Retrieved January 30, 2020.
Better off in "Presidency of" or wherever. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Past photos of Trump?

I found a photo which I believe was once used as the official photo of Trump. See the photo in the middle of the January 29 page here. If not, it is similar. Where is the best place to ask what photo was once used?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:40, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

May I ask why this matters? AFAIK, everything on enwiki is in the public domain and free to use, so there can't be any copyright issues. To find old images, try going through the page history for this article. Mgasparin (talk) 02:41, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
At the top of TALK there is a text box for searching the archives. Try there with “photo” or “official portrait”. There were many discussions on what photo to use. The one you’re referring to was not “official” - note the fake background. As I recall it was taken in a hallway when he became the nominee, and was used here until the inauguration brochure then reinstated during a relatively long period until they got official portraits done. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:54, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Can I just be curious what the photo used here was before the official one?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:22, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
With a little resourcefulness, you needn't depend on others for the information you seek. #Current consensus #1 includes the phrase: "enforced when an official public-domain portrait was released on 31 October 2017". So why not just go to the article's page history and display a revision from 30 October 2017? You can jump to that date in the history using the "Filter revisions" drop-down at the top of the page history page. For assistance with any of this, avail yourself of WP:Help desk. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:24, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
On that page, that's not the photo I remember. I seem to recall asking before and being told about a photo that was changed. In other words, even if I look at the version from a particular date, the photo won't match.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:23, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
It's not an image Wikipedia would have been able to use. It's from the cover of a book (The plot against the President : The Devin Nunes story, or something similar) and copyrighted, I assume. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:08, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Contested edits

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

Several of your "concising" edits changed the meaning of the article text. It's important that editors can rely on your edit summaries and I was disappointed to find these changes in meaning that were not just copy edits. I restored the NPOV established stable text in a few places. I also find that you sometimes write convoluted, unclear and run-on English sentences, and I repaired a few. I kept some of your wording and did not revert several of your edits, which I thought were good improvements. SPECIFICO talk 01:34, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, where do you think I changed the meaning of something? As for my edit summaries, I did not describe anything as copy editing. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:11, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
I would say this is the most egregious example of an edit that is not "concising" by any stretch of the imagination, in that it removed an absolutely key point about how Trump's presidency was launched on the back of his birther bullshit. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
I agree...he has consistently brought Obama into it which has nothing to do with trump other than taking credit for anything positive he did such as the stock market 2600:1702:2340:9470:D8C3:E5AB:4813:A9CE (talk) 22:35, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
@Scjessey: It is factually incorrect that his "political career" started from the birth certificate conspiracy theories. First of all, he ran for president in 2000 without Barack Obama's birth certificate being an issue at all. Secondly, the controversy about the birth certificate began in the first term of Obama's presidency (2009-13) whereas Trump's second and successful presidential campaign began later than that in 2015. Thirdly, reliable sources report that while accusing Obama of lying about his birthplace made him popular with some voters, it was his derogatory comments about Mexican people that were most notable in starting his campaign. Fourthly, Trump's career in politics began in 2017, as this was the first time he was actually employed in a political office, which is what a political career means. On all of these counts, the prose that I replaced was incorrect.
I also would like to point out that we should strictly adhere to WP:NPOV, especially on contentious articles. Wikipedia editors can certainly have personal views, but we should not be referring to politically contentious events as "his birther bullshit", as that is making a personal judgement. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Please, give it a rest. Trump "ran" for the Reform Party from October 1999 (Larry King Show) until February 2000 (Today Show with Matt Lauer) (On February 22, Trump won the Michigan Primary with 2,164 votes defeating uncommitted with 948 votes. - big whoop), just long enough to promote a book that was released on Jan 15, 2000. And birtherism was a fringe conspiracy theory until Trump–with his Apprentice fame acquired since 2004–promoted it at CPAC in February 2011 while also announcing that he was considering running for president. At the time, Apprentice ratings were low, and Trump was promoting three books that were published in 2011, one of them ghostwritten by two Breitbart editors, including Peter Schweizer, and Trump assistant McIver. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:18, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Everything you have said is correct, though it is still incorrect that he "launched his political career" in 2011 regarding the birth certificate accusations. If editors want to include the content you are describing, they should do so in a way that is not factually incorrect. It would be a disservice to censor the historical conduct of Donald Trump by assuming it was satisfactorily explained by that fragment. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:18, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
"Launched" is how it was described in the news. There seems to have been a mix-up with a source that belonged elsewhere in the section. I just fixed it. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:30, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Whatever the news has described, it was not to say that a "political career" was "launched" by this. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:15, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
It is a fixed starting point regarding his myopia 2600:1702:2340:9470:E8D6:91E:F438:F4B2 (talk) 00:33, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 February 2020

I'd like to add a category. Ovalsign19 (talk) 22:59, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Which category do you want to add, and why? MadGuy7023 (talk) 23:48, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
My guess would be like the previous two they added.[19][20] Which might be a non-starter. PackMecEng (talk) 23:50, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Let's see what they propose. They may hope that "fool me thrice" is the charm.Quisqualis (talk) 00:33, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As an attorney, you should be able to enumerate the factual errors. A legal theory is not a fact. A fact is a fact. A theory as to a fact adducing a crime is a theory and a theory is just a theory. SPECIFICO talk 21:26, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Alternate facts 2600:1702:2340:9470:D8C3:E5AB:4813:A9CE (talk) 22:27, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
  • DELETE - seriously, that there is ANYthing the ‘Trump legal team has not disputed’ just is not very credible, or as currently phrased “did not deny the facts”. That’s a 22 January cite to NYT behind a paywall of a presentation that went on thru 24 January, and it seems possibly a confusing misportrayal. If it meant the first day they did not do the mentioned objecting re entry to senaterecord then say that; if they meant they presented no comment to the House points they should say that. But as phrased portrays House evidence as “the” and “facts”, and as if they were asked about it. Just looks unclear and wrong, and I’m not even sure it’s worth saying that bit at all. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:42, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Not sure what you're getting at. The NYT article isn't paywalled - you may need to clear your browser cache. For your convenience, here's the sentence in question: The president’s lawyers did not deny any of the core facts underlying Democrats’ charges, conceding what considerable evidence and testimony in the House has shown: that he withheld $391 million in aid and a White House meeting from Ukraine and asked the country’s president to investigate .... Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:00, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
I believe NYT still uses a soft paywall and Paywall#"Soft" paywalls appears to support that. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:07, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
I hadn't seen the WP article but after reading it I'm not convinced that "soft" paywall is a thing, not in my experience, at any rate. The info in the "soft" paywall section is mostly from 2011. Today, NYT and WaPo let you read one or two articles for free; Boston Globe lets you read one article for free after you sign up with an email address (and then you get lots of emails from them). After you clear your browser history you can read another one or two. That's quite different from WSJ or FT's paywalls which let you read the headline and the first three or four lines or nothing, respectively. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:55, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
It's not really relevant to the article, but I can confirm the NYT uses a soft paywall (partial article availability) in addition to letting you see some articles each month for free. What you get depends on the manner of access. For example, web browsing gives me 4 free articles per month, but accessing NYT through the Google News app gives me the soft paywall. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:23, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
I am saying the phrasing is a misleadingly bad paraphrase. If in the opinion of NYT on the first of three days the Trump Defense did not challenge what portion he felt was the core of that days House presentation, then that shouldn’t be expanded to paraphrase “Trump Legal team has not disputed the facts of house democrats arguments.” nor “The Trump legal team did not deny the facts as presented in the charges, but stated that Trump had not broken any laws or obstructed Congress.” — as if the cite was saying all presented items (not a his opinion caveat “core”) and as if that were all three days (not just one) and leaving unclear what “facts” are involved. That just doesn’t appear a credible portrayal of the cite or to be likely behaviour for a defense team. If it means ‘did not challenge he had withheld $391 million and a meeting while asking for an investigation’ then it should have said that and used a cite that’s not just first-day. But I’d suggest it really needs to say what the defense team DID do - convey information of what happened rather than comments of might-have-been, or maybe just skip giving day 1 story and give a day 1 thru 3 summary. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:32, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
M.B. I am having a hard time parsing your comment. Could you put in a nutshell what alternative text you prefer? SPECIFICO talk 02:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
It is at the start of my input here “DELETE”. Just the first day opining by someone isn’t worth saying at all, no need for fixing the misportrayal. After all three days, and multiple sources would be so much better use of effort. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:31, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Got it. What fact did the Trump team dispute? SPECIFICO talk 01:35, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 February 2020

Fixing punctuation error Aydenbear (talk) 00:21, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Please state specifically what edit you are requesting. Per WP:Edit requests, edit requests are not requests to edit but rather requests for edits. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:25, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Final bit of the lead/introduction change?

Hey all, this is a really small change, but since my account isn't eligible to edit the article, I wanted to ask that the change be made here. It's about the last line in the article's introduction - He is the third U.S. president to be impeached. The impeachment trial began on January 16, 2020.

When read like this, the last part (about impeachment trial ) feels incomplete. Instead of just mentioning the date it began (leading the reader to have no idea if it's still ongoing or closed), the impeachment's timeline should be mentioned. Three options might be presented here to go in the article - pick your poison. I'd choose the first one, but that's just me.

Thank you! <4 Kobentori (talk) 09:40, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

We will have to establish a new consensus for this proposal as it concerns part of the lead, but I can support the first one as it is the shortest. Remember that we are trying to not exceed the template limit here. Mgasparin (talk) 10:33, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Biographies are ideally written from the historical perspective, so I'm not really in favor of words like "ongoing" creeping into the article. Personally, I would just delete the second sentence and bring the trial back into the lead of the article when it is over. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:39, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
True, but given the attention this article receives, there's not much concern about sentences containing material that will become out-of-date. Mgasparin (talk) 21:54, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Wait - Give it a 48 hour holding period. I like being specific about the date but wait a bit even after the verdict. I'm often advocating there should be a 48-hour holding period as it takes a bit of time for responses and WEIGHT to develop. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:37, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Mark, if you’re that passionate about it, I (seriously, and without any tongue-in-cheek) suggest that you take it to the WP:Village pump. It’s unlikely to be taken up otherwise. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 02:25, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Article structure

Shouldn't the major section on Impeachment, and also the sub-section on Congressional investigations, really be part of the section on Presidency? --ZimZalaBim talk 02:48, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes. We should just have a a couple paragraphs that summarize it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:19, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
I think that would create a gigantic Presidency section.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:57, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
OK but seems unlikely. I think it would be OK in principle and note the Bill Clinton article did so. The length would add about 7 screens to the 10 screens length of that section, which is not really bad and could be trimmed. But I believe other editors wanted those sections elevated to here is how it got this way so am dubious it would be acceptable. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:51, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
We already have articles on these subjects, hence we need only short mention here and in the presidency article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:57, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
I support a shorter mention, but we can't have a gigantic Presidency section. Look at the current structure.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:27, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Can you make the impeachment process a whole new section(starting 9/24)

The whole thing from September 24 to February 5 needs to be in a section. The inquiry ended on December 3, the impeachment occured on December 18, and The trial was January 16 to February 5. This is so important, it needs to be a section170.24.150.111 (talk) 16:42, 6 February 2020 (UTC) P.S.-A lot of people were upset, despite 20 Republicans needing to be against trump170.24.150.111 (talk)

It already exists. Nuke (talk) 23:28, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Actually, no, I'm wrong. The initial inquiry is not part of the section it seems. It would seem appropriate to include it with the impeachment. Nuke (talk) 23:34, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
...Timeline of the current section:
1. Pre-Mueller support for impeachment
2. Post-Mueller increase in support
3. Core impeachment events
Overall, it definitely includes things starting 9/24. However, it goes through prior events, including the Mueller report and the impeachment process itself, and it can be harder to notice than you may expect. Nuke (talk) 23:44, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Impeachment process coverage

  1. Regarding this and related articles, general information about impeachment should be shifted to Impeachment in the United States, and that article should be linked to if explanation seems desirable. Yes, I know there are non-Americans about (including me), but we can follow links. There is also no point in canvassing things that didn't happen, and this is potentially confusing.
  2. The text should reflect what did happen, not what people expected to happen, or what could have happened in a parallel universe. In terms of Donald Trump's life, I don't think people are going to be particularly concerned about issues that didn't cost him the presidency.
  3. The commentary of politicians, legal scholars, columnists etc during the process is not particularly important. Commentary about the process after the event is far more important. We have to look at the long term view of the impeachment process. It is misleading to concentrate on the losers' point of view. Would a reader in 10 years care?--Jack Upland (talk) 10:14, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes most readers would care here..americans are assholes not stupid...impeachment is a corrupted process...nobody lost but the American people as well as many others...do you understand how much he is hated? How could that not be relevant ? 2600:1702:2340:9470:BD2E:3A2A:274F:34B6 (talk) 19:15, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
That's not what I mean. I'm talking about duplication, speculation, and excessive commentary.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:33, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
  • User:Jack Upland - in terms of TALK for this article, I would suggest start thinning by roughly this: shifting para 1 (what Impeachment is) to the general, and para 2 (Mueller) to Impeachment of Donald Trump. Keep 3 and 4 (whistleblower), move 5 (details of state dept testimony), Move 6 (long descr of report’s),keep 7 (date of vote) and 8 (the trial). Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:03, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Infobox {{Donald Trump series}}

Where does that originate? I've searched Help but haven't found anything. The box wouldn't run into the body of the article if the last section (Business and personal) would also be hidden like the two sections above it. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking. If you are asking where the template is located in the article, it is right before the first paragraph in the lead. If you're asking where to find it in the wikipedia database, that is found by typing "Donald Trump series" into the "Template" namespace, found here. I'm not sure if I answered your question or not, sorry if I didn't. Mgasparin (talk) 10:42, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
I did some work quickly and collapsed the "Business" section of the infobox. It definitely shrinks the size of the template. Mgasparin (talk) 10:55, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. That's exactly what I had in mind. My search for "Template Donald Trump series" on the Help page was missing the colon after "template." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:14, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
You keep referring to Help, but you can enter template:donald trump series in the Search box on this page or any other Wikipedia page. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:19, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. I didn't know that. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:38, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_110&oldid=940850212"