Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 94

Archive 90

←

Archive 92

Archive 93

Archive 94

Archive 95

Archive 96

→

Archive 100

Disinformation

A new article from Glenn Kessler (of The Washington Post's The Fact Checker) says that on at least 14 occasions Trump has made "a deliberate effort to replace the truth with his own, far more favorable, version of it" and has thereby effectively engaged in disinformation. This seems like a very significant conclusion coming from a very reliable and prominent source, worthy of inclusion here in my view. Discuss. R2 (bleep) 18:17, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Possibly. I see that several other reliable sources have taken notice of the article. I wonder how long it will be before someone creates the redirect Bottomless Pinocchio.18:24, 10 December 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrX (talk • contribs)

isn't that just his opinion עם ישראל חי (talk) 18:35, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

no - MrX 🖋 18:41, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

yes, an opinion piece and/or his personal analysis summary. In other words, not something open for others to verify. An example of why that site is not strictly a "Fact Check". Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:51, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

No, it's not an "opinion" piece. In fact, it prominently says "Analysis" at the top and "interpretation of the news based on evidence, including data, as well as anticipating how events might unfold based on past events". Toodles.- MrX 🖋 21:25, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it’s an “opinion” piece when it’s expressing his personal views and/or WP:PRIMARY “analysis”. Those proclamations that it is “interpreting” the news and his “predictions” only seems to add to the evidence. His summary of what he asserts is his (private) analysis that is not visible, uses hyperbolic wording, makes up terms, misuses existing technical terminology is not him reporting on an outside event - it is just him stating his opinions. While I was interested that he seems counting each repetition as a separate ‘false’ item, the point is this term disinformation is just a hyperbolic or artistic bit here that does not match that terminology use or experts. But it doesn’t matter as this is just one article writer rant of no particular note or BLP impact, so fails WEIGHT and OFFTOPIC. I also think this sort of was previously covered in discussions about having the article say “false”. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:20, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

• Not really seeing how, where, or why we would add this to this article? Seems basically already covered by what is in there now. PackMecEng (talk) 18:47, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

There's a big difference between disinformation and false statements (misinformation). R2 (bleep) 19:08, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Eh, largely seems like semantics. PackMecEng (talk) 19:10, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

No offense but that's an extremely ignorant statement. I'd suggest you read a John Le Carre novel or two, or talk to anyone in the intelligence community. R2 (bleep) 19:38, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Ha, sure thing But seriously, in this situation they are equivalent enough to not make a notable difference between the two. PackMecEng (talk) 19:40, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely. It's even more significant than a source of this caliber saying Trump lied. We're talking about systematic lies here. "Disinformation" is translation of a Russian word and is historically closely tied to Soviet propaganda programs. The fact that Glenn Kessler would be dropping the d-bomb is highly significant. The "bottomless pinocchio" thing is already receiving substantial media attention. R2 (bleep) 19:47, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I think you need a new foil hat. PackMecEng (talk) 19:50, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Ha ha the intelligence community is known as spooks, not kooks. You need to read up. R2 (bleep) 19:57, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Been there done that, I'm good thanks. PackMecEng (talk) 20:01, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

User:PackMecEng There is a difference between Disinformation and Misinformation, and dismediation and so forth. WP went thru the flavors repeatedly in discussions for the label 'false'. Kessler is incorrectly using the term for where Trump said the same thing repeatedly and its something he criticizes. Most politicians would call that "staying on message" or "the spin", others might call it stable beliefs (however misguided they might be) -- but Kessler decided to call them disinformation. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:07, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I've reverted Soibangla's addition here of the term the Bottomless Pinocchio, and object to any re-addition without clear consensus. I feel it's clearly not important enough to include here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:42, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

It's a pretty stunning revelation, although not a surprising one. May I ask what would convince you that it should be added? - MrX 🖋 19:46, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

As long as the entirety of the story is "man with newspaper column invents new word for 'liar'" and nothing else, there is literally nothing (apart from an RFC that demonstrates consensus otherwise) that will cause me to support including this. If something relevant to Trump happens as a result, I'd reconsider. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:51, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

That WaPo found a need to create a new category suggests DUEness. O3000 (talk) 19:53, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

It's not a column. It's been edited and has the reputational backing of the Washington Post behind it. The Fact Checker has crack research team behind it and is about as reliable as it comes. R2 (bleep) 19:54, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I am going to dig in my heels here. This is trivia that certainly shouldn't be in this article; it should be in Veracity of statements by Donald Trump. We don't mention "Drumpf" here, we don't use the word "liar" in the article, there's no conceivable argument that will convince me based on the current information. This is the Post inventing a term of its own accord, it's not "covering" any event that has happened. They do not even claim that the term "Bottomless Pinocchio" is the product of research; they simply invented it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:58, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

The noteworthy fact is not the novel name "Bottomless Pinocchio". It's that Trump has apparently plumbed new lows in the extent and brazenness of his lying.- MrX 🖋 20:59, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

• User:Ahrtoodeetoo Don't be silly. (There really needs to be a 48 hour waiting period to stop just pasting whatever is on their feeds that morning.) Obviously a single-source opinion piece from Kessler does not merit a mention. Both not DUE without being prominently covered by numerous secondary sources and response from alternatives and President Trump, and OFFTOPIC since it lacks BLP significance of having been a Trump life choice or having made an enduring impact his life. It obviously has nothing like the significance of a single report from Mueller for example. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:18, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

You want additional reliable secondary sources? Here are some that have come out already: [1][2][3][4][5] (But obviously I'm being silly... Silly stupid droid, you really need to pipe down for 48 hours.) R2 (bleep) 21:38, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

how is it a secondary source if all it does is reference the original source עם ישראל חי (talk) 22:14, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand. They're all secondary sources, including the original Washington Post piece. They're talking about Trump's statements. I offered those links because Markbassett said we only have one source so we doesn't have enough media coverage to merit inclusion. No, we have at least 6 media outlets that have decided the subject is significant enough to publish on it. And that's just in the few hours since the Washington Post piece was published. R2 (bleep) 22:22, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

no you have 5 media outlets linking to a 6th who decided to call those statement disinformation עם ישראל חי (talk) 22:37, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I just accidentally bumped into this. I'm currently debating the same thing, so here's my opinion. A secondary source is perfectly legal to put only a quote from the primary source. By doing this it is interpreting the primary source, since we can expect that this being a secondary source , it would provide additional explanation if the quote from the primary source is misleading in any way. I didn't read the matter that is being discussed so I'm not taking anyones side on this.Bilseric (talk) 22:34, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

You guys no one is proposing adding any content based on primary sources. We're talking about adding content about Trump, citing a Washington Post article and/or any of the myriad other news articles that have been or will be published on the subject. The Washington Post article is not a primary source any more than any other newspaper article, either under our guidelines or under standard usage of the term. It is not an original material close to an event, it is not an account written by someone who was directly involved, it is not an insider's view of Trump's statements. We can decide to include in-text attribution if we wish, but that wouldn't magically transform an edited news article into a primary source. AmYisroelChai, I don't understand why you think a source somehow stops being a secondary source as soon as it references another source, or why it even matters. R2 (bleep) 22:46, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

The use of the new rating "bottomless Pinnichio" by a single fact-checker is not in itself significant enough to warrant a mention on the article, regardless of whether other news outlets consider the adoption of said rating by that single fact-checker to be newsworthy. This belongs on Veracity of statements by Donald Trump. --Hyperinsomniac (talk) 00:51, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I didn't suggest that we refer to bottomless Pinocchios, which don't think would be the appropriate emphasis for Trump's biography. We can draw from the source without referring to bottomless Pinocchios. That's why I highlighted certain language from the source that I thought was more significant. R2 (bleep) 01:12, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I think the main takeaway is that we have multiple reliable sources acknowledging that Trump is not just making false statements. They are saying he is deliberately and blatantly lying to deceive the American people in order to gain a political advantage. Moreover, he is doing so on a level so astonishing it no longer fits within a fact-checker's previously defined rating system. From an article standpoint, it means we can (at the very least) consider reassessing the weakness of "many of his public statements were controversial or false" in describing this new level of mendacity. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:29, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Who, besides the Washington Post, has used the term "disinformation"? As for "bottomless pinocchio", that is not worth a mention. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:58, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Here are some examples of other media outlets that have reported on this development and specifically referenced The Washington Post's description of Trump's falsehoods as disinformation: Washington Examiner, Columbia Journalism Review, The Hill, The Hill (again), The Fiscal Times, Arkansas Times, SFGate, NBC 9 Denver. R2 (bleep) 16:58, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

The Washington Examiner, the second The Hill, Arkansas Times, and NBC 9 Denver are straight no sources. The Columbia Journalism Review is just a list of stories of the week and even put disinformation in quotes. The Hill does the same, mentioning it once and again in quotes to keep it out of their voice. Same again with Fiscal Times and SF Gate. PackMecEng (talk) 17:50, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is. I don't think anyone is suggesting we cite those sources, nor do I think anyone is disputing the reliability of the Washington Post source. I think MelanieN just wanted to know the amount of media attention the disinformation bit is receiving. R2 (bleep) 18:02, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. These are not the heavy hitters among sources, and most of them make more of a deal out of "bottomless pinocchio" while mentioning disinformation only in passing, and mostly just in the WP's voice. IMO this should be in the "Veracity" article but not here. Not until it becomes a more widely used term to describe his approach. (This is a biography. Just as we have avoided using the terms "lie" and "liar", I think we would need much stronger sourcing to describe his use of language as comparable to that of the Soviet Union.) -- MelanieN (talk) 18:11, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Are you disputing the reliability of the Washington Post source, or the significance of the development? If you're disputing the significance of the development, as I believe you are, then whether the other sources are adopting "disinformation" in their own voice should be irrelevant. Put into policy terms, even if you view "disinformation" more as an unsubstantiated allegation by the Post than as a verifiable fact, then this is an allegation about the public figure that's been published by multiple reliable third-party sources. R2 (bleep) 18:36, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

My point was basically what MelanieN laid out. That the sources you list supporting it are not good for supporting disinformation. PackMecEng (talk) 18:27, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

• I wouldn't include this. Also, editors here who have an obvious bias and dislike for the President should be discounted accordingly. --Malerooster (talk) 17:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

How is this constructive? Please focus on the merits rather than the ad hominems. R2 (bleep) 18:03, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ahrtoodeetoo|R2, By giving my opinion that's how. Also, try not to use words like "ad hominems" when you don't understand what they mean. --Malerooster (talk) 23:00, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

It appears that the primary objections here are about the terms "bottomless pinocchio" and "disinformation." So would this language be acceptable?

In December 2018 The Washington Post fact-checker created a new category of falsehoods to represent three- or four-Pinocchio falsehoods that an individual has repeated more than twenty times. The paper found that Trump was the only current elected official whose statements met this criterion, with fourteen qualifying statements.

soibangla (talk) 18:45, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

It's better than nothing, but ugh. I'd only accept it if there was no other alternative the consensus could accept. It focuses too heavily on statistics and media behavior and totally sidesteps the source's main point. R2 (bleep) 19:15, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Make that “Kessler has slow news day, invents new term”... really nothing happened here, this is not a scholarly study by disinformation experts, it is just hyperbolic labels in an opinion piece of no note or BLP impact. Not DUE including and not in BLP topic. People really should stop casually posting their mornings feed and starting these things. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:30, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Nah, it's a legitimate effort to report what has heretofore been lacking in factchecking: the persistent repetition of falsehoods long after they have been repeatedly and decisively debunked. soibangla (talk) 19:34, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Markbassett, please stop personalizing the discussion. R2 (bleep) 19:46, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Kind of not possible to avoid naming Kessler when asserting this is an Opinion piece. Inventing his own term endless Pinocchios or making ‘reputation=disinformation effort’ out of President Trump having the same complaint with Mueller he reports 30 times seems obvious technically incorrect dramatic flair. (The ‘even after fact checkers say otherwise’ seems just a bit of hubris or self aggrandising on top.) It’s not like anything changed to suddenly make the ‘stay on message’ change so ‘the position is the same’ just got some dramatic relabelling. Though I actually have no idea if it was a slow news day that he came up with this. If you mean the mention of there needs to be a 48 hour waiting period and folks stop casually posting their mornings feed and starting a Chinese fire drill, that’s something I have said elsewhere before against TOOSOON and this is another instance of it. Though I actually have no idea if it was in your feed, the time between article seen to posted or even published to posted being measured in minutes is a Bad Thing people should stop doing. Just wait a couple days and see how it plays out. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 13:06, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Again, it's an analysis, not an opinion piece. You seem to disagree with it, but we follow reliable sources, not your contrary view. We don't have a 48 hour waiting period. WP:TOOSOON is an essay on article notability.- MrX 🖋 13:23, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Again, Opinion piece is the nature of this piece. Self-invented dramatic terms are not open to having a RS when only the WP:PRIMARY source has them. And a 48 hour waiting period might have saved this and other places where a too-casual short drop of ‘hey how about (link)’ winds up a time sink. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 13:38, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I have to agree with Markbassett here, they even list their fact checking section as a column.[6] Plus given the way it is written it is hard for a reasonable person to see it as anything but that. PackMecEng (talk) 14:31, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Talking about the invented term is a smokescreen to prevent this from being in the article. The term is not the key issue here. The salient fact (what should be in the article) is that after a rigorous analysis by a respected fact checker, it has been shown that Trump now lies on such an extraordinary level, beyond anything seen before, that the rating system used is no longer adequate to convey this level of mendacity. This is backed up by the other sources mentioned above as well. It's not the rating itself that's important, but the lying that precipitated the change. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:45, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

No smokescreen. No salient facts or analysis other than your own biased opinions. Time to move on. --Malerooster (talk) 15:18, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

@Malerooster: With all due respect, it is not my "opinion" (biased or otherwise). Multiple respected media organizations keep a running tab on the vast number of Trump's porky pies. Several editors agree that this is worthy of inclusion, so it is certainly worth discussing. Why are you opposed to discussion? Could this be the problem? -- Scjessey (talk) 18:11, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Just a reminder that the topic is the Kessler article, and *its* status. Have we gotten past that now (a couple days later) it has demonstrated getting little notice or impact so is not DUE a mention in the BLP ? We can continue discussing the other points of ways it is and isn't an Opinion piece and WP:PRIMARY, but it could get a mention in the Veracity article anyway and none here so is that just an academic point ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:41, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I find it fascinating that some consider the edit suitable for the Veracity article (186 page views yesterday) but not for this article (45,180 views yesterday) or the Presidency article (2,861 views yesterday). soibangla (talk) 23:10, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

You’d have to ask powerenwiki why he suggested having it, but I would guess it’s about TOPIC of the three. This this article is for what is biographically significant, not a fit; Presidency is for Presidential event or action, not a fit; but Veracity is supposed to be how commentators and fact-checkers have described the Rate of Falsehoods. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:31, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I think it's obvious why a sentence about a newspaper column (which everyone has already forgotten about) relating to the veracity of Donald Trump's statements might be DUE at Veracity of statements by Donald Trump but not in his overall biography. I am incapable of explaining why that is any further; if you genuinely don't understand I'm sure several other editors can explain it to you. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:35, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Not an improvement and undue. PackMecEng (talk) 19:40, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Politifact as external link?

I noticed that Obama has it, and I think it would be a decent EL here too, Donald Trump's file. Opinions? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:58, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

FYI, linked in the body of Veracity of statements by Donald Trump, near the bottom of this section. Obama doesn't have a veracity article, hence the problem with comparisons between presidents' BLPs. Obama is an apple and Trump is, erm, an orange. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:25, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Those are links to WP-articles, but your point still stands since they are in the EL-section anyway. I'll buy the sub-article-argument, and now I'd like an orange (a literal one). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:39, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm referring to current ref [85] in that section. Same URL as your link above. But you're right, it's also in EL there. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:46, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:15, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Individual 1?

FYI, there's currently a redirection discussion here concerning what to do about the term Individual-1. At present, we have no explanation of the rationale for using this designation in legal circles. It seems like a properly-sourced sentence or two somewhere in this article would help. Thoughts? jxm (talk) 20:03, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Seems a bad idea ... a procedural trivia not good thing to make a redirect for, and a search would otherwise find instances without that. It’s likely just SOP practice to number people testified on, so many other cases would have a different meaning of “individual 1”. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:52, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, but no other people get covered so much as "Individual 1". In fact, this has become so widely covered we really should mention it in the article:

"Manafort, Cohen, and Individual 1 Are in Grave Danger" [7]

"The utterly lawless ‘Individual-1’" [8]

"Individual-1' memes are everywhere after 'substantial' prison time suggested for Cohen" [9]

"The walls are closing in on ‘individual #1’" [10]

"Prosecutors: Cohen committed crimes at the direction of ‘Individual-1’ aka Trump" [11]

"President ‘Individual-1’ Trump Hasn’t A Clue, But Twitter Wits Aim to School Him" [12]

"Trump, 'Individual 1,' is newly cast as center of special counsel's probe" [13]

And so on and so forth. Come on. I know, that you know, how to use google. So just type "Individual 1" into that search bar and let me know if someone OTHER THAN Trump, from all these "many other cases" pops up.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:09, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm dubious that a redirect would be necessary, but I think we could probably slip in a parenthetical aside somewhere in the special prosecutor section if necessary, eg. when talking about the legal documents. I suppose I can see it adding something in terms of someone coming her wondering why people keep referring to Trump as "individual 1". I wouldn't give it any more than a single mention of eg. "Trump, referred to as Individual 1 in these filings..." when discussing the court filings in question, though. --Aquillion (talk) 08:01, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I think that would be a good wording and a good way to handle it. There is no mystery about who Individual-1 is; one of the documents says he was later elected president. By the way the documents, and most sources quoting them, use a hyphen: Individual-1. Not a space and not a # sign. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:54, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Where in the article do we have information about his connection to the recent guilty pleas and filings? Or haven't we mentioned it yet? Offhand I couldn't find it. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:26, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

This seems just the viral flap du jour - no need or value to making a redirect, does not fit reasons in guide WP:POFR, suits reasons to delete WP:R#DELETE. We really need a 48 hour waiting period to prevent folks dumping their morning feed in here and starting these Chinese fire drills. Seems possible vandalism/snark to elevate something derogatory, sort of like making a redirect for “small hands” would be. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 18:44, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Individual 1 isn't derogatory, it's the name Trump is referred to in the court filings. PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 19:39, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Seems like undue trivia. If the purpose of adding some trivia about "Individual-1" is to justify a redirect, that's not very sound justification. Should we also redirect Client-1, Candidate-1, Woman-1, Woman-2, Taxi Operator-1, Taxi Operator-2, Bank-1, Bank-2, Bank-3, Attorney-1, Editor-1, Magazine-1, Chairman-1, Corporation-1, etc. (and their variants) to Trump's bio and retroactively add a mention of them? Politrukki (talk) 20:02, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I can't believe we never put anything in the article about the convictions of Manafort (with Trump hinting at a pardon) or Cohen (with Trump named as the person who told Cohen to break the law). We have it now. The Cohen paragraph identifies Individual-1 as Trump. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:56, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 December 2018

Padmay101 (talk) 19:04, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Change his name to where his middle name is included

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Zingarese talk · contribs 19:07, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

@allofyou I’m gonna barge in here and say, I have to agree with Awilley on the third example provided by them in the template. I also agree with UpdateNerd that the MoS should be followed, but for the sake of compromise, I’d suggest to Mandruss that you also are right about the consensus of the people, but as with guidance vs opinions, in the case of this particular debate, I would suggest you attempt to get the MoS guideline updated to allow that consensus to overrule, otherwise someone has a lot of editing to do for the lower case p requirements. My two cents. Cheers and good day to everyone! Merry Christmas too if that’s your thing. Sirsentence (talk) 14:51, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Should the Special prosecutor page be linked to Special Counsel to let readers know what it is?

I originally included a link to Special prosecutor without removing (or changing) anything else,[14] and it reverted because of what I assume was a misunderstanding that I removed a link from the article.[15] I am going to assume it was just a misunderstanding and not a case of editors being revert-happy. In any case, it is okay if it is decided not to be linked. Keiiri (talk) 04:41, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Keiiri - that edit looks good to me. If you think someone felt it was misunderstanding, yOu might try again with the word “to” not inside the wiki link to make it more apparent there are two wiki links. It may still get reverted, this article is contentious. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:18, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Keiiri's edit was appropriate and informative; I have restored it, while moving out the "to" as suggested, thus avoiding the WP:SEAOFBLUE issue. Note also that we can link Special Counsel directly instead of piping Special prosecutor, because links on redirects are WP:NOTBROKEN. In fact, facilitating natural links within prose is one of the key functions of redirects. — JFG ^talk 11:41, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Another spinoff: Wealth of Donald Trump

I know everyone is tired by the continuing spin-offs we have to make, but I've made one for Wealth of Donald Trump - the section Donald Trump#Wealth was simply too large, and I'm sure you folk here can easily expand the spinoff article soon enough. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:58, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Good move, thanks! — JFG ^talk 11:43, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Though there have been exceptions

I propose changing the last sentence of the "False statements" subsection to add the bolded language as follows:

• From:

In general, news organizations have been hesitant to label these statements as "lies".

• To:

In general, news organizations have been hesitant to label these statements as "lies", though there have been exceptions.

References
References

Apologies for the citation overkill, I'd be fine with reducing the number of citations. But I want people to see how many news organizations have used the word "lie" in the last few months. I'm sure there are more. I tried to cull out the opinion sources. R2 (bleep) 18:07, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. "though there have been exceptions" is redundant with "in general". ―Mandruss ☎ 18:39, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

My broader point is that the current wording doesn't seem to reflect the weight of the substantial number of news organizations that have started labeling some of Trump's statements as lies. How about: "Most news organizations have avoided labeling these statements as 'lies.'" R2 (bleep) 19:46, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I understand your point and it's hard to find just the right nuance, especially considering that "just the right nuance" is almost entirely a subjective matter of one's political bias. I would write: "Many news organizations have labeled these statements as 'lies.'"—but I recognize that that's a product of my philosophical beliefs and value system. Policy really gives us no way to decide such things objectively, and lacking that objective compass I usually abstain. I do take a stand against clearly poor writing as in your initial proposal. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:58, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Why not opine on whether "Most news organizations have avoided labeling these statements as 'lies'" is an improvement over the current wording? Of course there's an element of subjectivity... but we'll never get anything done if editors are too afraid to share their opinions. R2 (bleep) 05:20, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

As I indicated, there is far more than "an element" of subjectivity. The above may be slightly more concise and it eliminates a comma, but I see little difference in meaning between it and the status quo. That's my opinion. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:29, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose-ish. As Mandruss says, this is implicit with "in general" -- but also to specifically say so seems a bit of OR. The reluctance is a topic of multiple independent RS, such as BBC, WSJ, TheStar, and Politico. (During the campaign it was more portrayed that Hilary was the "congenital liar" and Trump was a bit of a nutter - e.g. Politico) There is not a similar bunch of RS focused on what the exceptions are or various explanations why sometimes things are called a "lie". So there are times I can see it is done, but to say "sometimes they do" would be OR. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:58, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. The problem with those sources is that 4 out of 5 of them are from January 2017 or before, when the media was much more hesitant to call some of Trump's statements lies. The 5th one, from The Star, was from May 2018, and it confirms that the media does sometimes call Trump's statements lies. In fact, it uses the word "sometimes." If we were to follow that source's example we'd be saying, "News organizations have sometimes avoided labeling these statements as 'lies.'" I'm proposing a more modest change. R2 (bleep) 21:54, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Why not replace the word "statements" with "lies"?--Jack Upland (talk) 07:59, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Ahrtoodeetoo The Star article is about why false items should not be called a lie. So mostly saying logical reasons why “false” is the proper overall term and “lie” is just an emotional or partisan wrong term. The earlier WSJ article also explained that too. One might consider paraphrase saying “generally are not viewed as lies by the media” or “false covering hyperbole, misstatements, misconceptions, misinformed, excessive spin, and lies” instead of “media is hesitant to call them lies” is more properly the sense of cites, and the WEIGHT of coverage. But the Star does not literally say “Sometimes they do” - making that conclusion is OR. Having to work at justifying it should be telling you it’s OR. The article larger thread is on “false”, the antipathy of Trump and media (I see false claims and opinionating both ways) over the amount of the word “false” said on Trump. Coverage about words the media doesn’t say is the odd part. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:17, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Other editors will have to review the Star article for themselves. For what it's worth the same reporter wrote another story with the headline, "Donald Trump has spent a year lying shamelessly. It hasn’t worked." In that story the reporter wrote that "lying has been the most consistent feature of his presidency." R2 (bleep) 17:50, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Again, there are times I see it is done, but to say “sometimes they do” would be OR because it’s not an observation the RS are generally making. The WEIGHT is on the amount of “controversial or false”, and minor weight on why they say that - a ‘hesitancy’ to use a word will make it low weight. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 08:17, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Our statement that news organizations are hesitant to say lies may be outdated, as noted here by R2. Our references are from early in his presidency. More recent reporting may have been less reluctant to use the L-word. It's worth discussing. MelanieN alt (talk) 14:57, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Certainly news organizations are more inclined to say "lies" than they used to be. Perhaps something like this would be better:

News organizations have been less reluctant to label these statements as "lies" after an initial hesitancy.

Thoughts? -- Scjessey (talk) 15:41, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

References

It's outdated and it's really not what the sources are about - they're about his frequent lying, and note that in the past news organizations may have been hesitant to label it as such in passing or as commentary on the broader theme.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't think we should be saying anything about how news sources have changed how they treat Trump's statements without at least one secondary source to back it up. R2 (bleep) 19:15, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

• User:MelanieN Just more OR contrary to RS. Many RS say “false”, many RS say why that is the proper general term for misconceptions and misstatements and many other things, and they also say lie is emotional or partisan phrasing not objectively appropriate. The RS saying false explained why lie is improper. They came at the same time as the larger coverage of false, so they are the matching explanation. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:59, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

"Lie" is not improper. "Lie" is used when someone intentionally tells a falsehood, which is absolutely what Trump has done on many occasions, according to reliable sources. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:48, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

In the RS explanations from BBC, WSJ, The Star, etcetera say how they decided it was inappropriate by their judgement and policy, thus the section is on “False” statements. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 08:31, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

That's what they used to say. Now "lie" is pretty much the common term. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:50, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

The Chris Cillizza article above offers a very clear explanation of why “lies” may be appropriate for what Trump does. Other articles making the case for both the term “lie” and the increasing frequency of same: The New Yorker, Vanity Fair. But these are op-eds, not news articles. On the other hand, here’s a news article from last August, reiterating that news organizations are hesitant to say “lie”. I’m inclined to say we should keep the wording we have. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:38, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Foreign countries

JFG, regarding [16], while the headline of The Atlantic source is about the Dubai deal, it has more on new foreign expansions while in office: "place a ban on new foreign deals, two conditions undermined by the announcement that the organization would be moving forward with expanding its golf course in Aberdeen, Scotland." "Since then, numerous developments have called those intentions into question: Projects appear to be moving forward in both Scotland and the Dominican Republic, with the Trump Organization offering narrow, legalistic explanations as to why the progress didn’t violate the terms of the trust." "On top of the concerns regarding the specific details of the projects, the developments in Gurgaon demonstrate how little the Trump Organization’s pledge not to pursue any new foreign deals, which the president announced shortly before taking office, actually means in practice." which I summed up as "continued to pursue new projects in foreign countries"; maybe "continued to expand projects in foreign countries"? Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:37, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed note. It appears that the first version you introduced was too broad, and my version is too narrow. I'd be fine with citing each country named in the report; I think that's more informative to readers than just saying "foreign countries", which can trigger a lot of imagination about Russia or other controversial places. — JFG ^talk 14:01, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done[17] — JFG ^talk 14:07, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! (I didn't think of people thinking of Russia) Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:14, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

And I hadn't noticed the source was over 1 year old. Thanks for reverting the sentence to past tense.[18] — JFG ^talk 18:10, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

That simple

What does "Do not think this is that simple." mean? I'm unable to a relevant discussion. Politrukki (talk) 21:47, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Drmies I think this is directed at you. R2 (bleep) 22:08, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

R2, thank you. Yes--Politrukki, "it's verifiable", or whatever you said in your edit summary (with which you jumped blindly into something you seem to know little about), in no way addressed what was going on. Drmies (talk) 01:56, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Rrright. Well, "jumped blindly" is demonstrably false: I have provided sources and tried to make compromises. You obviously have not read the past discussions. Since you are unable to substantiate your claims and explain why you reject reliable sources, your objections cannot be taken seriously. Cheers. Politrukki (talk) 08:49, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Word-for-word quotation of source considered synthesis??

With this edit, Ewen Douglas removed the following text:

As of December 2018, none of the investigated Trump associates were charged with colluding with Russians to affect the 2016 election.

The sentence was sourced to a Washington Post article that was fully quoted as stating:

Four former Trump campaign officials have pleaded guilty in Mueller’s investigation, though none were charged with colluding with Russians to affect the 2016 election.

It is therefore very puzzling that Ewen Douglas justified his revert by commenting "clear WP:SYNTH - the source does not say anything like what the sentence in this article stated." If anything, the article text could be criticized for repeating the exact words of the source! Looking forward to a clarification, and hopefully a self-revert. — JFG ^talk 17:07, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I have partially self-reverted that edit, because I missed that sentence on my initial read. However, I take issue with your statement that it's a word-for-word quotation - the source says "four former Trump campaign officials" and this article's text said "none of the investigated Trump associates". Clearly, there are many more Trump associates that are still currently being investigated, so that text was inaccurate. I adjusted it to deal with only the two campaign officials that are mentioned in that section, Manafort and Cohen. Ewen Douglas (talk) 17:43, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks for the retraction. It appears to me that limiting this sentence to Manafort and Cohen also fails to reflect the source, which discusses four Trump associates who were charged. Notably Flynn is missing, and his legal status should definitely be clarified given the current headlines about his delayed sentencing and the judge erroneously calling him a traitor. I believe the fourth one was Papadopoulos. How about this amendment:

As of December 2018, four Trump associates (Cohen, Flynn, Manafort and Papadopoulos) were indicted for criminal charges arising out of the Mueller investigation, but none of them were accused of colluding with Russia to affect the 2016 election.

Looks factual and informative to me, and accurately reflects the source's reporting. — JFG ^talk 18:21, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

AP lists five associates: Manafort, Gates, Papadopoulos, Flynn, and Cohen. WaPo only says "former Trump campaign officials" so I believe it must actually be excluding Cohen from that list. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:25, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy to add Gates to the list and cite the AP report in addition to the Post. — JFG ^talk 18:33, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

"Indicted" incorrectly implies that their guilt remains to be determined. In fact, all 5 have either been convicted or agreed to plead guilty. MastCell ^Talk 16:20, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

User:JFG - while I'm big on 'Just Follow The Cites', here I'll suggest paraphrasing caution pulling just one aspect of one informal summary article led a bit astray. The Washington Post article loosely said 'Four former Trump campaign officials have pleaded guilty in Mueller’s investigation, though none were charged with colluding with Russians to affect the 2016 election. ' That didn't cover one referred outside, or that collusion is not a crime one could be charged with or what they actually were charged with or pled guilty to. I'll suggest maybe yet another phrasing : "As of December 2018, Trump associates Manafort, Gates, Papadopoulos, Flynn, and Cohen were charged with crimes not involving Russians interference with the 2016 election." Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:26, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Somebody has edited this part of the article in the meantime; the text is more precise now, and does not rely solely on the WaPo report (3 sources). — JFG ^talk 08:47, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

User:JFG - the Presidential/Investigations/Associates section wording is a bit of mess. All four associates pled guilty, not "or have been convicted"; it is trying to describe things found by Mueller but not the Russian interference target of the investigation plus he is not a judge so "convicted in Muellers investigation or related cases" is off; and listing names would use the verb that they "are", not "include" the names listed. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:30, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

MOS issues

@UpdateNerd: wishes to decapitalize President of the United States in this bio article & all other US president bio articles, as well their infoboxes. He wishes to do the same with Vice President of the United States at Mike Pence & all other US vice president bio articles. GoodDay (talk) 02:01, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Per MOS:JOBTITLES, and not all instances; in fact in many cases it needs to be capitalized. The MoS explains that when the President is being referred to as someone's title it is capitalized, as opposed to the office of president where it is lower case, except when the latter is the subject. UpdateNerd (talk) 02:16, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Prior discussions here in January and in November. Related open RfC here. As seen in the January discussion, the consistency argument, combined with personal-opinion I just don't like it arguments, will forever prevent a local change here. MoS (JOBTITLES) alone is not sufficient in this case; you will also need a community consensus to follow MoS. Can't imagine how it's useful to raise this locally, yet again. But sure, I'll restate my support for JOBTITLES compliance anyway. If this amounts to anything, we'll add it to the list of related discussions. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:46, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:MOS explicitly states in its lead that "if any contradiction arises, this page always has precedence," and therefore trumps the above willy-nilly arguments against it. UpdateNerd (talk) 08:00, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@Zingarese, your objection really doesn't conform to WP:JOBTITLES. Is it just because he's the current president in office that you think (in my opinion mistakenly) that the title is being denoted? If it were phrased: "Donald Trump is serving as the 45th President", then it would be the title being invoked per the MoS. UpdateNerd (talk) 23:12, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

@UpdateNerd: I took a closer look at MOS:JOBTITLES, and have to concede that yes, you are correct, it should in principle be lowercase due to the modifier. My reasoning that the sentence was denoting the title because of the link to President of the United States. I'm happy to reverse my reversion if you wish. Zingarese talk · contribs 17:40, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

@Zingarese:, to avoid the appearance of edit-warring, I think that'd be the appropriate action. Make sure you mention explaining the earlier bit of confusion on the talk page. Thanks, UpdateNerd (talk) 19:23, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

@Mandruss, I'm aware of the rules barring edit-warring, but the MOS is quite clear on both how to capitalize titles & its precedence over localized consensus (opinion). In the interest of avoiding bureaucratic hurdles per WP:IAR, I made my rule-ignoring reversion. UpdateNerd (talk) 01:53, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

@UpdateNerd: I've been around this article for about two years and AFAIK the ArbCom editing restrictions trump everything else. Everything. Else. You simply can't re-revert on a content disagreement. People who don't get that usually end up blocked. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:01, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

It's not a content disagreement; it's a direct and obvious contradiction of the MoS. UpdateNerd (talk) 02:04, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

You have my advice. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:07, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

• Let's cut it out with the reverting until a consensus is reached here. The article will literally be fine either way.

  I looked at MOS:JOBTITLES myself and the examples there make it obvious that lowercase is correct. I wonder however if the wikilinks make a difference...the link to President of the United States makes it look like a title that should be capitalized. Consider the effect of wikilinks in the following table:

Table illustrating effect of Wikilinks

Donald John Trump is the 45th and current President of the United States.	N Not MOS:JOBTITLES compliant Y Looks right
Donald John Trump is the 45th and current president of the United States.	Y MOS:JOBTITLES compliant N Looks wrong
Donald John Trump is the 45th and current president of the United States.	Y MOS:JOBTITLES complient Y Looks right
Donald John Trump is the 45th and current President of the United States.	N Not MOS:JOBTITLES compliant N Looks wrong

Proposals for replacement (added layer)

Donald John Trump is the 45th and current president of the United States.	Option 5 (suggested below by User:UpdateNerd)
Donald John Trump is the 45th and current president of the United States.	Option 6 (suggested below by User:UpdateNerd)
Donald John Trump is the 45th and current president of the United States.	Option 7 (suggested by User:Mandruss)

Obviously #3 would be nice except the link needs to be to POTUS and not US. ~Awilley (talk) 21:45, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Any MOS compliant version is fine, but it's weird not to link to the President of the United States article. You could add another option: Donald John Trump is the 45th and current president of the United States. But option #2 above is probably simpler. UpdateNerd (talk) 21:57, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Heh, I never thought of that. That could work, especially since this article doesn't currently link to United States (just checked using a "what links here" tool). Let's see what others have to say. ~Awilley (talk) 22:10, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

@UpdateNerd, I just did a quick scan of the previous 10 presidents and ALL of them have it capitalized, including Nixon, who was the example used in MOS:JOBTITLES. It seems this is bigger than just a LOCALCONSENSUS thing. ~Awilley (talk) 22:23, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

That's because people keep reverting it because they aren't familiar with the MOS. They should all be consistent, not just with each other, but also the MOS. I wouldn't press the point so much if the MOS didn't state its own precedence in all cases of contradiction. UpdateNerd (talk) 01:35, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

@Awilley, that's the point I tried to make in my first comment in this section. The difference is that I don't give much legitimacy to those other occurrences, which I'm certain are less the result of rigorous evidence-based examination of the issue than editors' vague opinions of what looks right to them. Wikipedia simply must allow for correction after we've gotten little things wrong in a large number of articles—it's impossible to get everything right initially—and your reasoning precludes (or seriously impedes) that correction. See my related comment here. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:48, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I'll note that option 5 violates both MOS:EGG (president) and MOS:OVERLINK (United States). Options 3 and 4 violate OVERLINK (United States). ―Mandruss ☎ 03:04, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree that #5 presents overlinking, which I only suggested for the sake of argument. However, I have another alternative. Since '45th' already links to the list of presidents, why not simply have it read: "Donald John Trump is the 45th and current president of the United States." — Preceding unsigned comment added by UpdateNerd (talk • contribs) 10:22, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Added as #6. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:51, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Methinks the MOS stating "its own precedence in all cases of contradiction" sounds a bit tyrannical. That's a classic:

1. The MOS is always right.
2. When the MOS is not right, please refer to point 1.

We should exercise editorial judgment here. I'm fine with upper or lowercase "p" provided that we don't try to cram a link to the United States, so I guess I'd support options 1 and 2. And for what it's worth, I don't feel that option 2 "looks wrong" at all. It just looks unusual in Serious Articles About Very Important Politicians Who Rule The World. Readers won't mind. — JFG ^talk 11:22, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Whether one favors p or P, we're talking about a grammatical usage rule that shouldn't vary between cases. In this quasi-professional encyclopedia, the goal is consistency on elements of style, which is the point of all manuals of style and their sole reason for existence. That concept is directly counter to a call for editorial judgment, which ensures inconsistency. Yes, for things like this, MoS should always be right unless one can make a case for a local exception to it, something that sets the local case apart from almost all others. This is not such a case.
If this hasn't had a full hearing at community level, it needs one, but until then we should comply with the guideline we have. My understanding and opinion is that an adequate community level hearing has taken place and the existing guideline reflects its outcome, which settles the issue for me. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:55, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Even after seeing my other suggestions added as options, #2 still looks the best. It is following normal, widely accepted grammar and MoS guidelines (which just happen to be ignored across the full spread of relevant articles), and follows the most logical linking. UpdateNerd (talk) 15:37, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

• I personally prefer the status quo. More relevant, however, is that from the past discussions it doesn't look like there will be consensus to make a change here. I therefore suggest we move on to bigger and better things. R2 (bleep) 22:14, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
• 3 complies with the manual of style. Why would any other option ever even be considered? If we wish to rewrite the rules of capitalization, we start by getting the style changed, not by seeking an exception that could easily send the message that this man's entry distills a lack of education.--~TPW 16:56, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

  Option 3 violates MOS:OVERLINK (United States), as stated above. It would be odd to ignore that in an MoS-compliance argument, no? ―Mandruss ☎ 16:59, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

• Comment unless this is a universal change which would include all past presidents and vice presidents it should not be changed and this is not the place to get consensus on such a change as it affects multiple pages the probable place to get consensus on that would be the WP:MOS talk page עם ישראל חי (talk) 17:08, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

  There is no need to discuss at the MOS page unless one is trying to change it. However, I started conversations at President of the United States and Richard Nixon (which is the example used by the MOS), and also attempted edits at George Washington, John Adams, and Barack Obama. My edits of Joe Biden and Mike Pence have stuck, so it won't be a total surprise when other articles get changed. We are certainly not going to discuss this at all 45 president and related vice president articles, so it is most logical to work out consensus on this page—that of the current president. UpdateNerd (talk) 01:50, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

  FWIW, your edits to Biden & Pence were reverted, by other editors. GoodDay (talk) 21:36, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

  I fail to see how it's "most logical" to require a local consensus to comply with a community consensus, and in fact that is contrary to WP:CONLEVEL, part of a Wikipedia policy. The missing piece here is policy enforcement, which under our current system can only be done by admins. Try taking something like this to WP:ANI as a WP:DE complaint, and watch it quickly become an uncontrolled out-of-venue rehash of the guideline, another unproductive skirmish in the ongoing MoS war, and so on—everything but policy enforcement—that consumes tons of editor time and goes exactly nowhere. I find it very hard to deny that this system is completely broken. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:28, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

References

I don't care what the decision is. I'm just concerned about consistency across all the US presidents & vice presidents bio articles. Therefore, whatever is decided here? I'll be applying to the other US prez & vice prez bio intros. GoodDay (talk) 21:26, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

PS: There should be an Rfc on this topic for all the US prez & vice prez intros. GoodDay (talk) 21:27, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

If policy were enforced, the existing guideline would be all that was needed. If policy is not enforced, nothing will be enough, including a new and redundant RfC. We needn't run RfCs to see if it's ok to follow guidelines that are backed by community consensus. This is not a fuzzy matter of interpretation that needs further clarification. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:57, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

An official website of the United States government uses the exact phrasing of the article w/ the proper lower casing. There should be little argument against using proper grammar rules on this or any of the other President articles, so maybe the most effective way to obtain consensus (as opposed to creating multiple split-RfCs and conversations on all the pages everywhere) is to see if any of the guideline opponents can refute the logic of the combined AP & Chicago grammar style guides, the MOS, and the U.S. gov't's own phrasing. This is not an "ultimatum", as I'm walking away from the issue; I'm just curious, and pointing out the obvious. UpdateNerd (talk) 07:02, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

• That seems just an abnormality - note the Whitehouse.gov consistently uses the opposite - e.g. JFK “was the 35th President of the United States”, also Congress.gov seems to, e.g. “OBAMA, Barack, a Senator from Illinois and 44th President of the United States”, and the language of the constitution plus many ordinary RS capitalised the phrasing. Frankly the prior guide to just follow the cites should override here — ‘the lead sentence should describe the person as commonly described in RS’. The latest MOS edits wording seems still struggling and now grammatically just wrong - the use of a preceding definite or indefinite article does not matter, “was” or “was the” before “President of the United States” are equivalent so should make it obvious this does not make a difference to it being a title. President is a title when there is a country name following - the phrase “President of the United States” should always be capitalised. It should also be capitalised when used as preface to a proper name (former President Bush died at age 94) or for the official address “Mr. President” and “the President”. Please do NOT try this MOS and make “Elizabeth I was the queen of England” or “Margaret Thatcher was the prime minister of the United Kingdom”. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 10:12, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

add Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections

Add Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, as the timeline covers a significant portion of Trump's lifetime, besides the significance of the subject. X1\ (talk) 22:01, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I will guess they mean to ask if there is somewhere here appropriate to insert a wikilink to it, they couldn’t expect a paste of all the jumbled text. No, it is already at the top line of the Investigations article pointed to. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:23, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

When to capitalize "president"?

In the first sentence of the lead, change "current President of the United States" to "current president of the United States" per MOS:JOBTITLES, local consensus at #MOS issues, and discussion on my talk page.

Some editors may have had different ideas about process, but the MOS is explicitly clear, and the reasons I gave above haven't produced articulated objections from anyone who actually opposes the MOS. There are multiple editors who plan to follow through by making the articles for all other US gov't officials consistent; I've suggested the top-down strategy of fixing this page first and then disseminating the grammar rule in descending order of importance. UpdateNerd (talk) 10:17, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Full support – The October 2017 RfC that refined MOS:JOBTITLES guidance is extremely clear, and the revised guideline includes this exact example: Nixon was the 37th president of the United States. In the lede sentence of this article, we have Trump is the 45th and current President of the United States. Per the guideline, "President" must be switched to "president" here. Re-litigating this debate here, or on any other president's individual article, would be a futile exercise of forum shopping. Just follow the MOS. — JFG ^talk 14:04, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Full support Vehement support - Just playing along, since some editors feel we need a consensus to follow clear MoS. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:14, 24 December 2018 (UTC) Modified per Scjessey. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:31, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Conditional support - only if this includes the intros to all US presidents & vice presidents bios. GoodDay (talk) 14:19, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Strident support - for when "full" simply doesn't convey the magnitude of my support sufficiently. I mean, this is an obvious no brainer, isn't it? -- Scjessey (talk) 14:25, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Note the article is no longer full protected, but please don't let that be an excuse to have another capitalization edit war. Also this might be a good resource for future votes here. ~Awilley (talk) 15:43, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done I have no expectation that this discussion is over, but the current guidance at MOS:JOBTITLES resulting from the recent RFC is clear in this case. I have also changed the guidance at the top of this page ("Current consensus"), under item 17. Good night, and good luck. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:00, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Jonesey95 I do not see that, or I would converting that to an afternote. Altering the text of consensus records without note is making a false record that presents as a typo against the wikihistory links. And discussion of capitals may change. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 08:10, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

I do not understand the sentences immediately above. If you have a request for me, please state it in simple English that even a dummy such as myself can understand. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:28, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Jonesey95 the Current consensus #17 should reflect what that discussion was. What you stated sounded like a false revision of history instead of adding a postscript about capitalisation. I am not seeing any such, but if there is edits please be sure they reflect the actual sequence of events, thanks. Markbassett (talk) 01:58, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

In an attempt to answer what I think you are trying to say above, I have added a note to bullet 17. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:43, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Made change to Mike Pence, as a result. I'm going to wait for a little while ('bout 2 days) before I start to de-capitalize on the other US president bio intros & the other US vice president bios intro. Now that the change 'here' has been made? I'm guessing more editors are going to weigh in. GoodDay (talk) 01:12, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

I've extended this to George W. Bush and Dick Cheney as well. Note that some of the articles use slightly different phrasing, saying X "served as the Nth President" instead of "was the Nth president". As I interpret the MOS, one sentence structure supports the capitalized version, while the other doesn't. Of course, the wording could always be changed if there's interest in making the articles more consistent. UpdateNerd (talk) 09:43, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

@UpdateNerd: I think both cases should be lowercase; "served as the nth president" is no different than "was the nth president", the operative qualifier is still "the nth". We would use caps only in cases like "On Monday, President Trump met President Macron." No caps if we write instead "On Monday, American president Trump met French president Macron." — JFG ^talk 10:06, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

^^^ Agree. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:11, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

But according to WP:JOBTITLES, the only distinction made is whether a title is being denoted. When someone's serving as President, the sentence structure assigns them the title. I raised this at the MOS:BIO talk page. UpdateNerd (talk) 10:22, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

At some point we cross a line into unjustifiable-complexity territory, where costs exceed benefits, resulting from overthink. That does, in my opinion. There would be no end to "that makes it a title" reasonings. I oppose starting down that path. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:42, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

@UpdateNerd: We must still distinguish "He served as President" from "He served as the 39th president". — JFG ^talk 12:07, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

After talking this out for the sake of argument, I agree. See here UpdateNerd (talk) 12:15, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Misreading - The MOS says clearly that use as title should be using capitalised, so it should be “current President of the United States”, or “President Obama”, or “Mr. President”. And ...SO wording needs to be re-raised at MOS to get the MOS wording more clearly laid out . Cheers Markbassett (talk) 08:00, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

No, MOS:JOBTITLES says (in a somewhat roundabout way) that the title should be lower-cased when "preceded by a modifier (including a definite or indefinite article)". This case has not one but three modifiers: "the", "45th", and "current". The examples in the table were chosen to clear up any confusion—Nixon was the 37th president of the United States. is the example most relevant to this case. Feel free to go to WT:Manual of Style/Biography and propose specific refinement, but that has nothing to do with this article because the editors here already have a good understanding of the guideline. My view is that the prose could never be completely unambiguous without reading like a legal contract—which of course is the opposite of clear for ordinary people—and that's why we have the examples. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:36, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

p.s. When it is followed by specific proper name as in “President of the United States” or “President Washington” a capital P is needed. If it is simply used as noun as in “the current president.” it should be uncapitalised. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:14, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

User:UpdateNerd Yes, I have started discussion that the recentism MOS table additions contradict its own text there - that title should be capital P President is stated, and then table has examples the other way. The phrase “President of the United States” should always be capitalised, grammatically and by strong RS. This is distinguishable grammatically from other generic word use such as “The United States has a new president” by what follows the word, the name of a nation, not by what precedes it. So follow the discussions and meanwhile, take it that the MOS narrative, RS, and grammar authority exceeds the example. I will disregard the example as an error, please do the same and do NOT make a lower case “prime minister of the United Kingdom” or “queen of England”, so only “united states” entries need to be undone. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:33, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Community consensus disagrees. Please respect it. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:47, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

A four person discussion two days ago not in the affected articles is not deserving of so grand a label as “Community consensus”. I seriously do not see how ‘a title should be capitalised’ got confused to uncapitalised examples contrary to that, much less a ‘goal is to reword to remove capitals’. As the latest of capitalisation discussions it, the opposing views, and the prior long-standing consensus will be given some respect. In the meanwhile please respect the BRD and do NOT go further into “queen of the United Kingdom” until that MOS gets to weigh in. Fair is fair, respect cannot be a one-way street or unearned. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:43, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Mandruss was probably referring to the MOS:JOBTITLES RfC of October 2017: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters/Archive 25#RfC 2: Specific proposal to revise the third bullet of MOS:JOBTITLES. That settles the case quite conclusively. Your grievances should be aired at WT:Manual of Style/Capital letters. — JFG ^talk 07:58, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the redirect, that discussion is due more respect than the more recent just 4-5 folks, but is not "Community consensus" and obviously not settled. There are these concerns/objections currently appearing when folks try to apply the guide and have confusion or the phrasing/usage failing or the result objected to as wrong. In this venue alone we have UpdateNerd remarks about the guide " As I interpret the MOS, one sentence structure supports the capitalized version, while the other doesn't. " ; JFG giving an example that later seems incorrect or at least not apparent from the cite "We must still distinguish "He served as President" from "He served as the 39th president"" ; Mandruss saying the guide phrasing says something "in a roundabout way"... Remarks back at the MOS indicate a SMcCandlish perception that articles where this would be relevant have generally rejected this. Just give it more work in discussion and better phrasing which allows for possibly changing the result, and see if it actually is community consensus opposes the MOS article consensus. Cheers 107.77.204.183 (talk) 20:17, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

No, the phrase "president of the United States" should not always be capitalized. Per the style guides, MOS, and RS, it depends on the context. UpdateNerd (talk) 07:11, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

If people are really keen to see the "P" as a capital letter, the opening paragraph could be rewritten like this:

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) currently serves as President of the United States. Before entering politics, the 45th president was a businessman and television personality.

Personally, I think it is ugly and I prefer the lower case "p" with the existing wording, but this is always an option. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:37, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

No, just no. GoodDay (talk) 15:38, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, I agree, but I would be remiss in not offering an alternative. Some people really think capital "P" is the way to go, for some reason. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:06, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Burden of offering poor alternatives should be on those who think they are good alternatives. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:36, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Scjesssey the recent JOBTITLES version indicates that phrasing should capitalise that way “as President of the United States. Before entering politics, the 45th president was a businessman”. I think it obvious (a) folks are thinking it says something else, and (b) that folks are thinking the result is improper. These seem signs of need for discussion on what to say and least some change in how things were said. I also note a recent edit seems to go against the current JOBTITLES and is “as president of the United States. Before entering politics, the 45th President”. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:49, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

User:UpdateNerd - the phrases like “President of the United States” or “King “King of Great Britain and Ireland” should always be capitalised, per strong authoritative RS, grammar, and the MOS. There is no discussion of contexts for that, just some odd discussion that when wording “was” with “the” matters, so a “was President of the United States” is thought correct but “was the President of the United States” is shown in the wrong way at an example. And then editing seems to have confused the two and uncapitalised when “the” was not present and some remarks as if the guide is mandating all be uncapitalised. Seems just a poor recent version of the guide and needing further discussion leading to hopefully better edits. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:39, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

If you feel there's a problem with WP:JOBTITLES, I suggest you make your case for how it could be improved on the MOS's talk page rather than this specific article's. UpdateNerd (talk) 04:47, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

User:UpdateNerd per TALK, discussion of edits for an article should happen at that article — so application here is getting discussion and mention of problems would occur here as well as being escalated into discussion for edits there. Doing it in isolation also seems likely part of how this JOBTITLES got into needing further discussion and revision so maybe there should be a MOSTALK to help avoid echo chambers. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:42, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

@Markbassett: Regardless, your issue is with the MOS itself, not its (correct) implementation, so I suggest you have the conversation there for the best outcome. Cheers, UpdateNerd (talk) 08:20, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

That's correct. MoS cannot be developed bottom-up. The only reason discussion was started on this page is because there had been earlier resistance to MoS compliance at this article. We're past that now, as far as I can tell, so I think discussion may cease here. If JOBTITLES changes again, I assume we will edit this article to comply without further discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:13, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

User:UpdateNerd Nope, my concerns at multiple articles are not just about the MOS implementation, and back at the MOS my concern is not just about the internals or text within that article. Again TALK is clear — if you’re dealing with an edit here then TALK about that edit here. This also seems stuck trying to view each in isolation which again I think is a problem cause of the MOS situation (from SMcandliss remarks that MOS consensus is generally contrary to consensus at all the affected articles... yet it went forward anyway?!?). That only works when an article does not involve other articles. If something involves multiple pages and projects then it functionally can fail on delivery unless it gets wider consensus with the point of application intended end-users. The MOS really should talk to where it is expecting edits as outcome to see what goal/intent is of value, and should talk as MOS for who that is and what phrasing to do, and should not be intentionally deaf to that applications are confused on what the recent wording even means. Though that might be meat for a WP policy article about MOS process, or perhaps for RFC failures. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:22, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Please stop pinging me over this issue. If you want to change something, my advice is to give an example of how it could work better instead of ranting at anyone who disagrees with you. That's called WP:ICANTHEARYOU. UpdateNerd (talk) 15:29, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

UpdateNerd OK, not pinging. (Noting he addressed me and then when I replied addressed back, oddly objected ??? Usually thats the way someone tries to get a direct response.) I think you have my input process - edits here get TALK here per WP:TALK - as well as my input for the topic of this thread - When to capitalize President : When it is followed by specific proper name as in “President of the United States” or “President Washington” a capital P is needed. If it is simply used as noun as in “the current president.” it should be uncapitalised. That the Lead should revert to the longstanding consensus "President of the United States". Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:32, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

In the article lede, "president" is just a noun, not a proper noun. It should be lower case. Two examples that illustrate the issue:

1. Trump is the current president of the United States. "President" is not part of a title.
2. Trump currently serves as President of the United States. "President" is part of the title.

It's a subtle difference, but a difference nonetheless. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:50, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Description of Mueller inquiry in lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Totally legal and oh so groovy, baby!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(edit conflict) What is "hugely misleading" is the version you modified, because the reader is now led to believe that "a number of Trump associates" pled guilty to helping "the Russian government in its election interference" (because the text omits saying what those people were actually charged with). I strongly object, and would revert if I were sure of not violating the new rules. @Awilley: that's a good test case: am I allowed to revert MrX's edit[20] under the "replied to user's objections on talk" provision, or would my first edit[21] iterating on the text (with reference to this discussion) be considered "challenged" by MrX, and therefore impossible to restore until further consensus develops? Am I allowed to challenge MrX's change in turn by removing the whole sentence (return to statu quo ante) until a version emerges that is acceptable to all parties? — JFG ^talk 13:17, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Thanks. I have reverted to the version including the proviso about criminal charges being "unrelated to Russia's efforts".[22] I do welcome further discussion and amendment of the text. — JFG ^talk 13:57, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With MrX's comment today,[23] we now have 7 editors supporting this version, and only one (Ahrtoodeetoo) opposing it repeatedly. Time to drop the stick? — JFG ^talk 20:28, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Arbitrary break

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The issue is that we have not established that Trump and his people did not ask for Russia to interfere with the election. In fact, Trump actually did ask Russia for an assist: [24] - MrX 🖋 12:56, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

This "it was obviously just a joke" talk is astonishing IMO. If you have followed Trump's remarks all along you would know how frequently he just blurts out the truth in one of his rambling stream of consciousness remarks. According to one news report of the time: Trump’s hacking request was so egregious that it earned immediate pushback from other Republicans. Speaker Paul Ryan’s spokesman issued a statement saying, “Russia is a global menace led by a devious thug. Putin should stay out of this election.” Even Mike Pence, Trump’s own vice-presidential nominee, contradicted his running mate. “If it is Russia [that hacked the DNC] and they are interfering in our elections, I can assure you both parties and the United States government will ensure there are serious consequences,” he said.[25] Gandydancer (talk) 16:11, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alcohol

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Removal of Syria/ISIS paragraph

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

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

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

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

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

I find that language deficient because:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mention of Queens in the infobox

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

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

Falsehoods, revisited?

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

---

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

Sources

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

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

Move the sentence out of the “campaign” area?

Possible wording?

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

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

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

Not Democratically Elected

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.

---

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

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

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

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

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

A footnote explains the constitutionally-mandated process of the United States' presidential elections. Some people may not like it but that's the process. Claiming that Trump was not democratically elected is just plain ridiculous. — JFG ^talk 21:09, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Nah. I might agree with my personal concept of the term. But, as Mandruss said, we need a preponderance of RS. Democracy has always been a fuzzy concept. O3000 (talk) 01:18, 9 January 2019 (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.

Proposal to remove this: "many of his public statements were controversial or false."

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.

---

The word "False" here is opinion. In politics every single candidate is said to make false statements. So if we are going to put "false" for trump without an unbiased source [Examples: New York Times, CNN, Washington Post, MSNBC, Salon, Vox, The Young Turks, etc], then we need to apply "false" to many more candidates.

Also "Controversial" is another word we could apply to almost every candidate. Presidential candidates always have views other people find controversial.

If someone could provide an example of False statements, in the article, or below in response to this, that would be good. At the le.ast there must be a source that gives examples of false statements.

Currently this makes Wikipedia look biased against politicians on the right.

Disciple4lif (talk) 21:25, 13 January 2019 (UTC)Disciple4lif

That isn't going to happen. This has been discussed extensively among experienced editors. Donald Trump's legacy is rooted in his lies. It objectively bears no comparison to any "candidate" or U.S. president. Unfortunately, your reasoning is very faulty and uninformed.- MrX 🖋 21:42, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Agree with MrX. See Donald Trump#False statements and Veracity of statements by Donald Trump, as well as plenty of discussion in the archives of this page. Per WP:NPOV, negative content ≠ bias. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:05, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Trump is in a league of his own and it is important for people to understand his political style and also why he attracts so much media attention. TFD (talk) 07:11, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Disciple4lif - Yes, it’s Opinion. I would be fine with returning to neutral naming of his main topics, but that seems unlikely. (a) WP is biased against politicians on the right, and (b) that lead section line is about blaming the media for his winning the nomination (and later the election) by airing where he voiced topics not abiding by liberal PC rules, as if reporting or sensationalism was an unfair advantage. Before then the article gave neutral simple naming of topics - illegal immigration, the free-trade agreements, non-interventionist foreign policy, and a temporary Muslim ban. In late 2016, replaced that with judgemental “controversial”, and then just before the election circa archive 24 or 26 added the “false”. Also (c) a “false” meme is in liberal press with some WEIGHT, and that this states it vaguely as fact rather than opinion seems a faithful paraphrasing ... it is presented as a general and unsupported judgement stated as if fact in liberal press. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:12, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Clearly WP:DUE, clearly covered widely by WP:RS, been discussed at length, and Markbassett, please stop trying to turn this into a forum. O3000 (talk) 14:33, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Oppose. Have you not seen the plethora of fact-checking sites and dedicated sections of existing websites, kept busy just with Trump's assertions? The word "false" here is demonstrable fact. You, and Trump, are entitled to your own opinions. You are not entitled to your own facts. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:44, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Eh, what is a fact? PackMecEng (talk) 15:06, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

A fact is a thing that is known to be consistent with objective reality and can be proven to be true with evidence. A falsehood is the opposite - something that is known to be inconsistent with objective reality and can be proven to be false with evidence. Examples include, e.g., Trump's statement that there have never been so many border apprehensions, or his recent bizarre statements that he never said Mexico would pay for the wall. In both cases, it can be demonstrated that he's (at best) wrong, or simply lying. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Oppose. Just because you claim that New York Times, CNN and the Washington Post are "biased," does not mean that (a) they are, or (b), even if they were, every single example they cite of Trump lying or making false statements would be incorrect. He has frequently made demonstrably false statements, proven by the above and myriad other sources, so the section is accurate and should stay. --FeldBum (talk) 15:11, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose we're avoiding the word "lying" because it makes assumptions about his mental state and character that we are hesitant to state in Wikipedia's voice. Him making false statements is unquestionably true; he makes false statements all the time. Just the other day he said [26] "I haven't actually left the White House in months" less than a week after visiting Texas. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:58, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Per others. The larger discussion to have in the future is when we can start to use the word lie. This discussion has been had before. But as time ticks forward, more and more evidence shows we should use lie because there is enough evidence to assume his mental state.Casprings (talk) 17:07, 14 January 2019 (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.

Thousands of false and misleading statements

This ("He continued to make thousands of false or misleading claims during his presidency.") was removed from the lead as unsourced and OR. It's not. The article contains an entire section, include a citation to the fact that Trump has made more than 7600 false and misleading claims,[27] and numerous supporting citations. We even have a dedicated article!

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

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

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

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

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Trump is lying more and his lies are increasingly bold.[28][29][30][31] It is not a phenomenon that exists in the past. It's not an occasional. It's not about his statements being controversial. The current text is misleading.- MrX 🖋 15:10, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Withdrawn — JFG talk 21:01, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: ElectoralCollege2016.svg Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:24, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Removal of early actions

Pinging Power~enwiki, regarding [32], while I'm not opposed to the removal of the early actions section, this does leave us in a position where the Gorsuch nomination is in the lead but not the body. Also I think the other content should be integrated in various relevant places in the Presidency section wherever not redundant. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:27, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

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

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

To be fair, Trump did sign a lot of orders in the first several days/weeks of his presidency, and many of those orders made relatively large policy changes. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:42, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Emphasis on dishonesty

For future discussions regarding how much emphasis we should put on Trump's dishonesty: "At this point, the falsehoods are as much a part of his political identity as his floppy orange hair and the “Make America Great Again” slogan." [33] R2 (bleep) 18:10, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

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

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

that article seems more a POV fork / attack page with sardonic titling, whose existence actually was challenged, but at any rate it’s not BLP in nature so not much there for here meh. Markbassett (talk) 03:09, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Focus on the border wall?

I was reading this article and wanting to put something about his Oval Office Address to the Nation tonight in it but wasn't sure where. I figured there was a section focusing on the government shutdown and his striving to get funding for the border wall but it seems there isn't much focus on this here. Where would I put this information about his address to the nation and could we possibly look into adding a section about the border wall and the government shutdown? Thanks Brboyle (talk) 02:25, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Brboyle I would suggest in the Presidency article, not here. And I think there really should be a 48 hour waiting period so... kind of too soon to say much. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:12, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Dossier renaming

Editors are invited to participate in the proposed move of Trump–Russia dossier to Steele dossier, at Talk:Trump–Russia dossier#Requested move 28 December 2018. — JFG ^talk 10:38, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

GA nom?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• An unequivocal FUCK NO (yes I had to go there). The vandalism, edit warring, and disruptive editing is too extraordinary for this article to remotely prepare or meet GA status. Maybe come back in several years and we’ll see.Trillfendi (talk) 04:21, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Signature

His actual signature appears to look different these days.

Photo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:187B:4FC1:9957:9D68:7444:4A80 (talk) 20:52, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

See the archives of this page for multiple discussions related to his signature. It's minor and has received enough attention in my opinion. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:01, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Archives 35, 47, and 59 relate. But if someone has a specific signature in wikimedia commons compliant with WP:SLP they want to propose on some basis, another TALK might be held. I don’t think ‘the most recent’ a strong argument, and that would set it up to be a perpetual chase and argument. For example, I’d think ‘at time of first Presidential order’ might carry some, going for the similarity to ‘official photo on entering office’. Or perhaps ‘iconic signature from X’ if there was a Hancock moment. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 12:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Proud to shut down the government

According to publications, he is "proud to shut down the government over the wall" [34],[35]. This is very important and I think should be noted on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 11:20, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM - MrX 🖋 12:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

In light of the fact that the Democrat leadership is unwilling to even compromise he has every reason to be proud of it. Never mind that democrats have funded over voters protest pork barrel spending for big holes in Boston, viaducts in Seattle and trains to nowhere in California to the tune of tens to a 100 billion bucks, spending 5.6 billion on border security is chump change. So yes, sure we can include what you suggest.--MONGO (talk) 11:26, 10 January 2019 (UTC) @MONGO: I shouldn't really reply to your obviously FORUMy response, but I can't help myself. Republicans are responsible for the biggest, most expensive, and most worthless piece of pork barrel spending in American history: the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II. They're also responsible for this multi-trillion dollar monstrosity, and this bottomless pit of money that still hasn't left the pad. And just recently, they gave away over a trillion dollars of taxpayers money to extremely wealthy people and corporations, ballooning the deficit (as Republicans seem to love doing on their watch) and the National Debt. Also, remember there was bipartisan agreement on a bill that even Mike Pence said Trump would sign, and then Trump changed his mind after getting harassed by some right wing radio commentators and blew the whole deal up, and this was after the previous bipartisan agreement on immigration that Trump also scuppered at the the last minute. So let's not pretend for a nanosecond that Democrats should be blamed for any of this mess. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:12, 10 January 2019 (UTC) Well said! I agree with every word. My very best wishes (talk) 05:01, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes include it since it is referenced to CNN, one of the most esteemed sources available.--MONGO (talk) 15:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree. I have added a brief few sentences about it, but I opted not to use CNN as a source.- MrX 🖋 16:33, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

This is lovely..you deserve a Jr. Editor's Achievement barnstar. Kudos most bold one.--MONGO (talk) 17:04, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

<blush>I have so many people to thank... my agent, my producer, my third grade teacher Mrs. Scott, my fencing instructor who used to whack me on the butt with a foil, all the admins and IP editors who sacrificed so much so that information could be free... you're all heros today. This barnstar is for you!- MrX 🖋 17:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Good addition by MrX and others. This shutdown is highly notable and really a big deal for a lot of people. My very best wishes (talk) 18:17, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM - --MONGO (talk) 17:51, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Looks like Trump is breaking all the yuge records - really gunning for that longest shutdown - so much winning! Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:37, 10 January 2019 (UTC) I agree. Winning is everything!--MONGO (talk) 20:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

This sentence is very unclear: The House and Senate lacked votes necessary to support his funding demand and to overcome Trump's refusal to sign the appropriations last passed by Congress into law. "passed by Congress into law" makes no sense; something passed by Congress doesn't become law until the president signs it. The actual situation seems to be: The House and Senate were willing to pass (and did pass, but separately in separate sessions of Congress) short-term funding for DHS and full funding for the other departments, but Trump said he would not sign such bills if they did not include funding for the wall. How can we say that? How do the sources say it? -- MelanieN (talk) 21:33, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, it is a bit wonky. I think what it's trying to say is that there are insufficient votes in congress supporting funding of Trump's wall and there are insufficient votes in congress to override a veto. - MrX 🖋 21:48, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Here's is the Washington Post's summary:

Democrats can use their House majority — or a Senate filibuster — to stall any legislation that includes additional money for a wall. Trump can veto any bill that doesn’t, and Senate Republicans have said they won’t advance any legislation that lacks the president’s blessing.
— The Washington Post

- MrX 🖋 22:01, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, that's much clearer. We could paraphrase that. Alternatively, here is something I came up with: Both houses of Congress appeared willing to approve spending bills for most agencies and a short-term extension for DHS, but Trump said he would not sign any such bill if it did not include funding for the wall. [36] -- MelanieN (talk) 22:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

How about this as a summary of the WaPo item quoted above? Trump said he will not accept any bill that does not include funding for the wall, and Democrats - who now control the House - said they will not support any bill that does, while Senate Republicans refused to allow a vote on any bill that Trump does not support. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

That's good MelanieN, but perhaps it should be in past tense?- MrX 🖋 22:54, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Good point. Changing. Or would you prefer present perfect (has said, have refused)? -- MelanieN (talk) 23:15, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Whatever you think is best. I don't have a strong opinion either way.- MrX 🖋 00:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

We seem to be the only people that care, so I am going to insert the WaPo-based sentence. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:30, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I will revise. Holding off (a) pulling in other RS views or (b) putting it into the RS order or (c) doing more of a draw from the RS. Will just shift wording to better consistency in handling by changing 'refused' into the ‘said they will not advance’ to match that the others were "said" phrased, and keeping WaPo but dropping CNN since that doesn't support this line. (A ‘refused to allow’ ia bit heated language and also gives wrong impression as the House bills do not literally get voted on in Senate or is there a direct refusal.) It's still uncomfortably far from what the WaPo cite said and how they said it, or what RS in general say. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Did some copyedit; the text said "shutdown" too many times. — JFG ^talk 14:21, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

That looks splendid.--MONGO (talk) 15:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

It looks good. Thanks.- MrX 🖋 16:06, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I do not think it belongs to "Immigration". Yes, it had happen allegedly due to the border wall dispute, but this is actually a separate important event. It is not about immigration at all, but about US political system, government and decisions by the subject of the page. I would place it as a separate section between "Impeachment efforts" and "2020 presidential campaign". My very best wishes (talk) 17:19, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM. Discuss politics at user talk. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:02, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Sure it does. The nearly sole obstacle that is keeping the government shut down is the obstinacy of the Democratic leadership most of whom previously supported a wall or at the very least, tighter constraints on illegal immigration. Trump isn't going to cave into a bunch of far left zealots hell bent on reversing their previous positions just for the sake of being obstructionists. [37]--MONGO (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2019 (UTC) Thanks, I now can see why it was included in the immigration section [38]. Speaking about the blame, yes, there are very significant differences between Democrats and Republicans. But why the government people should be used as hostages? Who is guilty? Democrats in the House singed the bills to resume the work of the government. Moreover, this should be the Congress, not the President who decides the budget. So the another side is guilty, or at least it seems this way to someone relatively unfamiliar with US politics like myself. My very best wishes (talk) 20:21, 11 January 2019 (UTC) "The nearly sole obstacle that is keeping the government shut down is the obstinacy of the Democratic leadership..." I'm really tired of reading bullshit like this. Go and start a blog or something, MONGO, if you feel the need to blurt this Mirror Universe crap out all the damn time. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:17, 11 January 2019 (UTC) User:Mongo Yahoo cite phrased it that Democrat leadership think they are benefitting from shutdown, so that would be paraphrased as “self-interest” but not “obstinacy”. Where did ‘obstinacy’ cite to? ‘Everyone is to blame’, especially for playing the blame game, is also in narratives. And Yes, Democrat leadership advocated for walls, but that was before it became something to twit President Trump over, so not really in scope of this article. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:58, 12 January 2019 (UTC) Sorry, Mark and MONGO, but the Democrats never "advocated for walls", certainly not a 2000-mile-long solid barrier. Many of them supported the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which authorized about 700 miles of fencing in key areas, most of which has now been built. Trump used to point out that it was nothing like his big beautiful wall; he mocked it as a little fence that could be scaled with a ladder.[39] The Democrats offered Trump $1 billion plus to repair and improve those fences and do other border security measures. He turned it down; he wants his wall. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:34, 12 January 2019 (UTC) P.S. And yes, I know this is FORUM stuff and I am guilty. But I hate to let misinformation stand unchallenged. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:57, 12 January 2019 (UTC) The house and senate passed the bill last session, but Mitch McConnell is holding it because he believes Trump will veto it. But the Senate can override the veto... So really, Mitch McConnell is the one preventing the government from reopening, on behalf of Trump. Anyone who blames Democrats is getting into FORUM/SOAPBOX territory. PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 20:16, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

@MelanieN. Thank you for the explanation [40]. It helps and precisely on the subject.My very best wishes (talk) 05:34, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Here's to all y'all

Coffee please.

A variety of donuts

I'll have one. Or two.

Coffee and donuts for those of you who keep duking it out here, and those who continue to improve the article, mostly in good and collaborative spirits.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmies (talk • contribs)

Why thank you! Hugs and kisses!--MONGO (talk) 18:05, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Doc, what a beautiful array of donuts! -- MelanieN (talk) 18:34, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Awe. Admins have hearts after all. Who knew? Happy New Year. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:05, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Careful it could be a trap... PackMecEng (talk) 19:14, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Ha. I lack iniquity sometimes to do me service. Drmies (talk) 03:24, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Well thank you Very nice of you. PackMecEng (talk) 15:44, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Much appreciated, Herr Doktor! — JFG ^talk 03:10, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

"Management Style" section

I've removed the following content recently added by Soibangla:

Trump reportedly eschews reading detailed briefing documents, including the President's Daily Brief, in favor of receiving oral briefings. He is also known to acquire information by watching up to eight hours of television each day, most notably Fox News programs such as Fox & Friends and Hannity, whose broadcast talking points Trump sometimes repeats in public statements, particularly in early morning tweets. Trump has reportedly fostered chaos as a management technique, resulting in low morale and policy confusion among his staff, although he has maintained his White House runs like a "well-oiled machine." Jeffrey Pfeffer, professor of organizational behavior at Stanford, noted that Trump possesses several management qualities that are prevalent among many leaders, including narcissism and dishonesty, but added, "With a modicum of management skill he could have gotten his wall, and he would probably be on the path to re-election. But he has very few accomplishments to his credit.” Presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin found Trump lacks several traits of an effective leader, including “humility, acknowledging errors, shouldering blame and learning from mistakes, empathy, resilience, collaboration, connecting with people and controlling unproductive emotions.” The New York Times reported that "before taking office, Mr. Trump told top aides to think of each presidential day as an episode in a television show in which he vanquishes rivals."

References

First off, it's excessive weight to the latest news-story-of-the-day, in this case quotes from people (Jeffrey Pfeffer, I note that article is full of unsourced puffery) in a NYTimes article. Second, a collection of personality assessments is barely a "management style" and it's certainly not about his presidency. If his tweets repeating Fox & Friends points are important, they can go under "Social Media". power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I'd appreciate if you would self-revert this edit, which immediately takes action on the reversion you just made before anyone has had even ten minutes to read and comment on it. Thank you. soibangla (talk) 00:15, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure why you want me to self-revert, but sure. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:23, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

By taking immediate action before any discussion, you are making your preferences a fait accompli.soibangla (talk) 00:26, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

It is not a “news-story-of-the-day.” It is the considered analyses of two subject matter experts, one in organizational behavior and another in the presidency, who describe his management and leadership qualities, and it just so happens they were quoted in yesterday’s NYT, so it’s not just a fleeting, transient “news-story-of-the-day.” Moreover, my edit does not contain any “unsourced puffery” that you perceive in the Times story; rather it contains direct quotes from those experts. You say “a collection of personality assessments is barely a "management style" and it's certainly not about his presidency,” but again, it’s two considered analyses of experts specifically in reference to his management style as president. Regarding the tweets, it is mentioned in the context of how he receives and conveys information, which is an element of his management style. Finally, I believe the article needs a section on management style, which you removed in wholesale fashion. Consequently I recommend the edit be restored in full. soibangla (talk) 03:02, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I personally happen to agree with the ”management experts”. But, I’m bothered by inclusion of experts analyzing current leaders, and worse, predicting what would have happened, or even worse what will have happened had the person acted or thought differently. In 30 years, the historians can write books about this stuff, and if we live through this, we can include it. O3000 (talk) 03:14, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

User:power~enwiki - meh. Looked like an WP:Criticism attack section and quotefarm to me, personality criticisms and speculation and not info about Management style. Just that mornings NYT in other words. Yes, this was excessive weight to "story of the day", seems just put in something from that mornings feed as a subsection and shoving it at the top of the section too. The topic has existed for a while and is diverse, so no need to pick the article done that day and excessive weight to that article to make it the whole POV for the topic when those two are not representative of the whole nor are their remarks or that piece particularly significant WEIGHT in that topic. I recommend against having a "Management style" section, as it seems close to making pop-psych evaluations that would be contrary to consensus #21 annnnd is just not a big WEIGHT topic or that much a BLP item. But if there is one, we'd hope to show something more than just that days newspaper - there really should be a 48-hour waiting period. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

• Shall we vote on whether the edit should be restored in full?

• Support soibangla (talk) 18:55, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose – The proposed content is largely anecdotal and opinion. — JFG ^talk 02:56, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - story-of-the-day not DUE including, and POV issues. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:15, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

NYTimes front page today

"In the days after President Trump fired James B. Comey as F.B.I. director, law enforcement officials became so concerned by the president’s behavior that they began investigating whether he had been working on behalf of Russia against American interests, according to former law enforcement officials and others familiar with the investigation." "Agents also sought to determine whether Mr. Trump was knowingly working for Russia or had unwittingly fallen under Moscow’s influence. The investigation the F.B.I. opened into Mr. Trump also had a criminal aspect, which has long been publicly known: whether his firing of Mr. Comey constituted obstruction of justice." "Agents and senior F.B.I. officials had grown suspicious of Mr. Trump’s ties to Russia during the 2016 campaign but held off on opening an investigation into him, the people said, in part because they were uncertain how to proceed with an inquiry of such sensitivity and magnitude. But the president’s activities before and after Mr. Comey’s firing in May 2017, particularly two instances in which Mr. Trump tied the Comey dismissal to the Russia investigation, helped prompt the counterintelligence aspect of the inquiry, the people said." [41] — Preceding unsigned comment added by PunxtawneyPickle (talk • contribs) 20:14, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I suggest at least a 48 hour waiting period. Seems not very BLP though ... it’s not a major decision by him or significant life event. Seems more like a bit for the Comey firing or for the Presidency article. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:30, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, the FBI investigating a sitting president for possibly working for the Russians is historic. But, I agree with waiting. O3000 (talk) 21:33, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Historic puts it mildly. It's like something out of The Manchurian Candidate. -- The Anome (talk) 21:38, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Unclear how many are aware that it's already in,[42] added by the same editor who made this comment yesterday. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:40, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

My understanding is there is a difference between adding de novo content and immediately proceeding to dismantle challenged content without any discussion. But maybe not. Are we at the point that every edit to this article must be pre-approved? soibangla (talk) 22:59, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Obviously not, since you weren't immediately reverted. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:27, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Um, OK. But am I mistaken to interpret your comment as a suggestion of hypocrisy on my part? soibangla (talk) 23:29, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Let's go with inconsistency. I saw nothing improper in Power-enwiki's edit, and I don't draw the distinction that you do. Proper process at this article is in flux and fuzzy as the ArbCom restrictions are being redrawn and under debate (last I checked). Not a big deal as deals go at this article. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:50, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

We disagree. There was absolutely no hypocrisy or inconsistency on my part. I think it would be nice to at least give me the benefit of the doubt and strike it, in the interest of maintaining civility and not unnecessarily escalating any prior disagreements. Let's be friends, OK?soibangla (talk) 23:57, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Being investigated by the FBI is one of the most significant things that could happen in someone's biography. It's front-page news and it will likely continue to develop as the reporters find out more info about it. "After Trump dismissed FBI Director James Comey, the Justice Department appointed Robert Mueller as special counsel to proceed with investigating links between the Trump campaign and the Russian government regarding its election interference, and any matters arising from the probe" is what we have in the lead section. We now know that there was additionally an investigation with unknown results, that may still be continuing, in the same time frame and folded into the same probe, about Trump being himself a Russian intelligence asset. So while it's fine to wait for the story to unfold, I don't understand how anyone can say it is not a good subject for a biography. PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 21:55, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

For most people you would be right. For Trump lets see if it means anything yet. PackMecEng (talk) 22:50, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

This certainly does seem pretty significant, if not extraordinary. It wouldn't hurt to wait a day or two to see how the story develops.- MrX 🖋 22:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I am not saying it is not significant just the same day or two to see if it has legs or what it all means. PackMecEng (talk) 23:15, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

• Include: From an RS with a strong record and fits the other known information. It’s extraordinary but not at all surprising.Casprings (talk) 00:09, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
• Here's an image of today's NYT front page, in case anyone's interested: https://i.imgur.com/n3w0Us8.jpg soibangla (talk) 00:16, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
• This is highly notable and should be included. I am not sure if there were any other similar cases in history. There was a well known historical case when the president of Finland secretly met with KGB agents (described in a book by Gordievsky). However, this is different. Here is what CNN tells: after meeting with Putin, "Trump's efforts include confiscating the notes from his interpreter and not allowing them to discuss the details of the meetings with other officials in his administration." [43]. His administration. This is all very much public. Who is his interpreter? Besides, [44]: “I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job,” Mr. Trump said, according to a document summarizing the meeting. “I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.” How can FBI investigate him? My very best wishes (talk) 02:45, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

User:My very best wishes umm past examples? If you mean other cases where the National police start making their own secret investigations on their national leaders over something they didn’t like, that is kind of coup d’etat space with cases alleged in South America, or instigated by US or USSR. If you mean cases of US Presidents trying to keep details secret, I think it’s pretty much all of them and more so with recent presidents Bush and especially Obama efforts trying to stop leaks. I can imagine that there may be times meetings are not classified, but cannot imagine why interpreters would ever be getting to take notes home. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:14, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Interpreters aren't taking notes home, they follow a protocol to have them filed with the appropriate government agencies. There's a major difference between a president trying to prevent leaks of classified info to the public and a president trying to keep his own diplomatic and intelligence apparatus in the dark about what he's saying to the leader of one of America's hostile adversaries, particularly when he has praised Putin and derided his own justice system, diplomatic corps and intelligence community. And that "something they didn’t like?" Maybe something like possible infiltration and subversion of the American government by a hostile adversary? soibangla (talk) 02:16, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

The piece identifies FBI motive as he ‘fired’ Comey. That FBI made up their own task over that is a bit chilling. And the complaint was that ‘Trump took’ the interpreters notes... but it sounds like they’d always be taken and if there is to be no summary report then no reason to send them to those folks. Unclear here is whether Trump ever does summary to staff or who else does not get summaries made, or what other cases in past administrations did similar. Meh, seems much ado about nothing, little noted. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:37, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

There is no public record indicating any other president did what Trump did, and there are very good reasons no others did. The story is very significant. soibangla (talk) 02:00, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

• We should let the story ripen for a day or two, but we are probably going to want to put this in the encyclopedia somewhere. I think the passage of a little time will suggest where: maybe this biography, maybe just the investigation page, maybe nowhere until we actually get Mueller's report and find out how much fire there is behind this smoke. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:24, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
• I agree with a short wait. Being investigated by the FBI is not one of the most significant things that could happen here and doesn't demonstrate guilt, but we include this type of information for everyone from John Lennon to Malcolm X and should include this somewhere as well. Whether it should be in this article or a sub-page is not yet clear. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:31, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
• My instinct is that now is an appropriate time to add something about this to this biography. The story has legs and coverage in third party sources around the world are looking at different aspects, for example:

  So many questions raised': Lawmakers respond to two bombshell Trump, Russia reports

  Trump fails to answer yes or no when asked if he ever worked for Russia

  Trump Russia: FBI probed whether Trump was working for Moscow - NYT

  Analysis: Why the FBI might have thought Trump could be working for Russia

  Trump Was 'aiding And Abetting' Russian Intelligence By Allegedly Asking His Interpreter To Conceal Notes, National Security Expert Says

  President Trump Evades Questions on Whether He Has Worked for Russia

  Democrats vow congressional action following reports on Trump, Russia

  Trump's Relationship With 'best Buddy' Putin Raises Worrying Questions, Senator Says

  This should probably go in a new subsection under Investigations - MrX 🖋 19:58, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh, just put in already. It obviously belongs in the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:34, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Not enough here for a proposed subsection... unnamed ‘former administration official says’ ... is not a lot to write on or clear if they mean Obama administration, and it seems like there should be more from other sources. Might get a line out of what facts are, but where’s the rest. So... what does the translator say? What was the FBI conclusion ? Who was the FBI investigator - McCabe or Strozk ? It is now past 48 hours, so seems enough time and I see some viral weight but not anything more in information at this time, and just wonder if a clickbait tease may be all there will be. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:29, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

• It's time to include. This are lots of RS. I like this CNN analysis of falsehoods promoted by the subject [45]. My very best wishes (talk) 00:54, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

User:My very best wishes ?.. That link doesn’t seem much about this topic. MrX already gave a list of potential cites ... glad to see NBC and Guardian ... suggest just summarize from those and possibly add BBC or Fox. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:22, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

The entire problem is well summarized here. My very best wishes (talk) 14:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

That article is a superb example of the laundry list fallacy, whereby no single argument proves anything, but surely listing 18 weak claims of innuendo somehow makes the central tenet (Trump must be a Putin puppet) appear stronger. — JFG ^talk 03:04, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Innuendo? Take a leisurely scroll through this. soibangla (talk) 03:13, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Speaking about content in my link, this is not really different from a lot of other things subject does. They are difficult to explain. No doubts, these things harm USA interests a lot, from the current shutdown to the department of treasury serving as an advocate for Mr. Deripaska. Why they do it? Who knows. Let me give you an analogy. Someone vandalizes WP pages. Why he does it? Who knows, but does it really matter? My very best wishes (talk) 22:19, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

User:My very best wishes that choice was another one not really reporting on this topic, and seems just speculation opinion piece so not usable as a source, and not helping BALANCE. Kind of going overboard and losing credibility too, if the topic is become a rant from all the nutters. Try finding some contrasting or dispassionate source like BBC and Fox. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:50, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Fox?????? PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 03:12, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I wish we could say that was a joke. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:02, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

This summary of the situation is very apt:

• Trump Must Be a Russian Agent; the Alternative Is Too Awful

"In short, we’ve reached a point in the Mueller probe where there are only two scenarios left: Either the president is compromised by the Russian government and has been working covertly to cooperate with Vladimir Putin after Russia helped win him the 2016 election—or Trump will go down in history as the world’s most famous “useful idiot,” as communists used to call those who could be co-opted to the cause without realizing it."

Sources

BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:02, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Trump has concealed details of his face-to-face encounters with Putin from senior officials in administration

From the WP. Obviously this should be in the article. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-has-concealed-details-of-his-face-to-face-encounters-with-putin-from-senior-officials-in-administration/2019/01/12/65f6686c-1434-11e9-b6ad-9cfd62dbb0a8_story.html Casprings (talk) 00:11, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Yup PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 16:51, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Nope. WP inclusion is by WEIGHT of coverage, not by an editor saying ‘obviously’ or ‘I think this is important’ about the story du jour. Give it a 48 hour waiting period and then one can see if there it has wide coverage or not. (And by then it may be disproven, or more could show up.) Cheers Markbassett (talk) 18:12, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

No. This is a minor thing, fails WEIGHT for this biography. A possible place for this kind of information could be Links between Trump associates and Russian officials. I have thought for a long time that it is a mistake for us not to include Trump himself in that article; we know that he has spoken to Putin several times in person and we-don't-know-how-many times by phone. As well as the notorious Oval Office meeting (which was also kept secret by the WH at first) where he revealed classified information to the Russians. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:20, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, this meeting notes story may be a minor thing, but trivial bits in the past wound up getting coverage so I think just wait a bit of time and see what WEIGHT it gets. This seems OFFTOPIC for the Links article, since scope of that is pre-2016 links not official meetings, and associates rather than President Trump himself. I’ll do my frequent mention that this doesn’t seem like Biographical content so would better fit the Presidency article if it actually amounts to anything. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 18:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

• This is significant and should be included. Here is an explanation why exactly this is really important. My very best wishes (talk) 04:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I do not know that an opinion article by a former Obama official makes much of a case. But something to keep an eye on for sure. PackMecEng (talk) 04:09, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

This is all pretty significant and is part of what the Russians include in their dossier of kompromat on Trump. Any secrecy or lies are used against him, especially when the lies are told to his own allies and country and the secrecy involves him hiding things from his own country and own intelligence services. When he does that, he's acting as a direct benefactor of Russian interests against his own country. This is unheard of behavior. No wonder three former CIA directors have described Trump as a Russian asset and useful fool, and one described Trump's behavior as treasonous.

This article by a subject expert is pretty insightful:

• "It's also an intelligence win for Putin. Russian officials' access to this sensitive information represents a potential bribery point that Putin can use against Trump at a later date. Russia can threaten to release parts of presidential conversations if, for example, Trump threatens to do something that they don't like. In short, by concealing the contents of his meetings, the President is opening the door for Putin to manipulate him and use him as an asset." (emphasis added)

“Not only were Trump’s comments imbecilic, he is wholly in the pocket of Putin.” -- John O. Brennan, former CIA Director

BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:49, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Obviously an Obama official with prior feud history is questionable ... I think it also obvious that only his attacks which draw viral notice would be up for DUE and then if included it would be treated as BIASED RS. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:42, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

David Laufman, until February 2018 the chief of the counterintelligence section of the DOJ national security division, who has worked with both Republicans and Democrats in government since 1990:

“I feel I have a moral obligation to speak up when I see action taken by the president or the members of the administration that — in my judgement — undermine the national security of the United States. And the notion that the president of the United States would be trying to conceal the details of conversations with the leader of our principal foreign adversary was positively chilling.” He cited “the unbelievable acquiescence to Vladimir Putin in Helsinki that was positively shocking to those of us who worked in the national security all of our lives,” as well as “all of the many things that you have read in the charging documents, people associated with the president. All those to me point to a reasonable inference — and it’s a painful, anguishing thing to acknowledge — that the president of the United States is a clear and present danger to the national security of the United States.”

soibangla (talk) 02:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

The political antecedents of John Brennan do not matter. A simple glance at his Twitter feed shows how spiteful and insulting he is towards Trump. Totally biased. — JFG ^talk 03:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

It was reported at the time that Trump had a private conversation with Putin and should be mentioned there. If the allegations that Trump is a Putin asset survive we can consider at that time adding the speculation. But per WP:CRYSTALBALL, lets wait and see. Incidentally, what makes something important is not what a reasonable person might find important, but what secondary sources choose to emphasize. TFD (talk) 07:18, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Sources

He, as an individual, is taking actions that fall far outside of normal practices. This, with the context of everything else Russia related, is certainly important to the article.Casprings (talk) 17:00, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Speaking about the source, this is an analysis by a CNN national security analyst. There are many other publications about it. They may tell something different. But this is something highly notable already - based on the coverage. My very best wishes (talk) 18:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I think we differ on whether the story du jour is “notable” — I think it’s not even a candidate for noticeable unless it’s still big (or better yet still growing) in coverage after a 48 hour waiting period. And “highly” I measure on the Mueller scale of years and mega millions of Google hits. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:53, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

What are you talking about? It has a lot of coverage, and for very obvious reasons: [46]. My very best wishes (talk) 04:49, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Not however the hyperbolic “highly notable” compared to the multiple things in coverage for a year+, separate article, and 100 million Google hits. This is barely noticable in WP sense so far, somewhere above Melanie’s wearing high heels one day and below what jacket she wore. Maybe worth a line, not worth the mentioned subsection. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 12:53, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I find it amusing that some editors are discounting the word of a "former Obama administration official" and conveniently forgetting she is also a former Bush administration official. Cognitive dissonance is rampant within the Trump faithful, I'd wager. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:16, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes because Bush has been such a fan and ally to Trump... But comment on content to users. PackMecEng (talk) 14:49, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I am commenting on content. I'm saying that as a career official who has served two administrations, the opinion of this analyst is perfectly valid as a source, and can't be discounted. If we only relied on sources who have not, at some point, expressed disapproval of Trump, we'd be down to just his cult of deplorables for sources. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:55, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Ha, okay I'm done here. PackMecEng (talk) 15:09, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

John O. Brennan, who isn’t a “she”, should be discounted due to both being from Obama administration and as a specific history of grudge. Giving it undue prominence or not noting it by name per BIASED would be inappropriate, and just saying ‘former administration’ without mention of ‘frequent critic, former’ would be misleading. In other words a cute punchy quote but not appropriate for encyclopedic use. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 13:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

• Minor details and all Presidents do this. I mean, does anyone really expect a world leader of unimpeachable qualities such as Donald Trump possesses to tell us what he and Putin discuss in a perfectly legal "private" meeting?--MONGO (talk) 15:07, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

• To paraphrase Edmund Blackadder, I'm laughing so hard I think my sides have split. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:13, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

We don't expect him to tell us, no - but he is expected to let his own team know what went on in those meetings. In fact previous presidents never met "privately" with foreign leaders, particularly not leaders from countries with tricky or hostile relations. They always took along White House staffers, representatives from the Secretary of State's office, etc. And there was always documentation of the meeting afterward. This was classified and not for public consumption; it was so that his team would know what was said, what he may have proposed or promised so they could implement it, etc. This was considered an absolute requirement so that he and his subordinates would be on the same page. And having additional witnesses in the room, people on "our" side, was a defense against the other side later twisting words or making stuff up. Trump's secrecy about his meetings with Putin is both unprecedented and kind of suspicious - why doesn't he want anyone, not even his own team, to know what he and Putin talked about? This reporting may not yet be "ripe" enough to put in the article, but it is important. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:53, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

• I think its ridiculous to expect any world leader to provide their meeting notes, this seems a silly season story. But I wouldn’t use the word “unimpeachable”. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 13:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

• They wouldn't provide their meeting notes, or a transcript, or any other actual record to the media and the public. Of course not. But those records WOULD be provided to members of their administration who had the appropriate security clearances and a Need To Know - such as the Secretary of State, possibly the CIA, possibly homeland security officials. The notion that a president keeps his policy discussions with a foreign leader secret FROM HIS OWN STAFF is simply bizarre. (Just one foreign leader, only Putin; he apparently has no problem letting them know what he discussed with Kim Jung Un and MBS.) -- MelanieN (talk) 17:57, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

• So Trump covers up his true Russian entanglements by doing what...by having "secret meetings" that everyone knows about! Hiding in plain sight...masterful. Its the perfect reverse barometer! Course its the mystery of the universe what was discussed behind those closed doors...ooooh...maybe they are planning on jointly invading Greenland? Perhaps Trump was getting Putin's great grandmammies "priceless" recipe for borscht and Vlad simply said "nyet I give you dah recipe, but dah aides...dey mus go".--MONGO (talk) 18:34, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

• "all Presidents do this" —

  Veterans of past administrations could not recall a precedent for a president meeting alone with an adversary and keeping so many of his own advisers from being briefed on what was said. When they meet with foreign leaders, presidents typically want at least one aide in the room — not just an interpreter — to avoid misunderstandings later. Memorandums of conversation, called Memcons, are drafted and details are shared with officials who have reasons to know what was said. “All five of the presidents whom I worked for, Republicans and Democrats, wanted a word-for-word set of notes, if only to protect the integrity of the American side of the conversation against later manipulation by the Soviets or the Russians,” said Victoria J. Nuland, a career diplomat who worked for Dick Cheney and Hillary Clinton, among others.

  soibangla (talk) 19:18, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

So, added criticism from another Obama fellow and (in the article) a Bill Clinton official. If they “could not recall a precedent” for a president keeping secrets from his own staff that’s surprising, and they need to reconnect with history. I can only think of cases with Kennedy, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Clinton, and Obama. As far as I know, Jimmy Carter didn’t and the first Bush didn’t. Of course it has gotten worse with the second Bush, far more so with Obama, and now Trump — all recent presidents have been plagued by leakers. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:36, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Your personal opinion notwithstanding, it is Wikipedia policy to reflect the content of reliable sources, and these constant efforts to undermine them are disruptive. MastCell ^Talk 01:47, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I have previously explained "There's a major difference between a president trying to prevent leaks of classified info to the public and a president trying to keep his own diplomatic and intelligence apparatus in the dark," and you responded to that statement, and here you are again ignoring it to construct your own alternative narrative that has no basis in fact. I concur with MastCell that you are being persistently disruptive. soibangla (talk) 18:27, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Let's be careful 'not' to promote the Russiagate narrative of mainstream media. GoodDay (talk) 14:45, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

What, precisely, does that mean? We follow the sources. PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 00:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Iffy. We’re supposed to follow sources in DUE proportion to their prominence... something often missing. And should portray all significant viewpoints, ditto. And often story of the day is rushing in trying to get into LEAD... It’s an imperfect world. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:18, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

So says a partisan. Stop damaging Wikipedia and America. PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 03:13, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Russian interference summary

Editors watching this article may wish to comment on a recent proposal to rewrite the lead of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections given currently-known information. See Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections#Proposed rewritten lead. — JFG ^talk 15:07, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Ivana Trump's nationality

Pinging @Mezigue, JFG, and General Ization: In the past 24 hours there has been some contention at the article about how to describe and link Ivana Trump’s nationality - as [[Czech Republic|Czech]], [[Czechoslovakia]]n, [[Czechoslovakia|Czech]], [[Czechoslovakian people|Czech]], or [[Czechoslovakian people|Czechoslovakian]] . Both JFG and Mezigue inserted their preferred version twice; I’m not sure how that kind of thing is covered under current rules, and anyhow my point here is not to accuse anyone of violating rules; it is to stop the arguing-via-revert and bring the discussion here to the talk page. Please work it out here and reach consensus. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:34, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

This is actually about her country of origin, not her nationality (which is something else entirely). In the context of the sentence "In 1977, Trump married Czech model Ivana Zelníčková ...", the adjective is being used as a demonym (a descriptor of a person, not a descriptor of a geography or a government). Hence, and adopting the convention generally used for linking demonyms in biographical articles here, the correct article to be linked here is Czechoslovakian people, not Czech Republic. See also List of adjectivals and demonyms for former regions, which states that, contrary to one recent edit, "Czechoslovakian is incorrect, though frequent". However, it also says that "Czech is technically incorrect here, as it is also used to distinguish Czech people from Slovaks or other ethnic groups". According to that article, the correct demonym for someone born in the former Czechoslovakia (whether of Czech or Slovak heritage) is Czechoslovak. This would make the correct formulation of this link [[Czechoslovakian people|Czeckoslovak]] (But cf. Czechs). "Czech" is used in the lead of Ivana Trump to describe her current nationality, and is used in the current formulation of the link. General Ization ^Talk 18:42, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm generally happy with complying with the dictionary. Dictionaries document actual usage, not what some academics feel the language should be. Where they differ, Wikipedia should follow actual usage rather than drive it. (Of course there's nothing wrong with exploring fine distinctions in the related Wikipedia articles, but that's not what we're discussing here.) In this case, per Merriam-Webster at least, Czech appears to be acceptable for Ivana Zelníčková at birth, via either def. 1 (she was born in Moravia) or def. 3. It's also more common than Czechoslovak, which does not have a separate dictionary entry but occurs in the dictionary only as an adjective or noun associated with Czechoslovakia. I'll support [[Czechs|Czech]]. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:44, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

The adjective "Czech" is more often construed as an ethnicity, not a nationality, so that the political entity that happened to rule Moravia when Ivana was born is less relevant than the ethnicity attached to the region she came from. Her article states that her father was Czech and her mother was Austrian; there is nothing Slovak in her lineage. By the same token, I think the appropriate link is to Czech people (a.k.a. Czechs), not to Czechoslovakian people which redirects to Demographics of Czechoslovakia. Hence the version I last inserted: "Czech model Ivana Zelníčková" — JFG ^talk 21:06, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I can support that. General Ization ^Talk 21:25, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Surely the nationality, not ethnicity or supposed such, of the suject's foreign spouse is relevant? Mezigue (talk) 21:36, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

In this case, it matters probably less than the ethnicity. Even in the time of Czechoslovakia (a short-lived federal socialist state), natives from there called themselves "Czech" or "Slovak" depending on which part of the country their family hailed from. Similarly, people born in the Soviet Union call themselves Russian, Ukrainian, Kazakh or wherever they came from. — JFG ^talk 21:45, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Czech in the sense proposed above expresses a (former) nationality, but also more specifically an ethnicity that is/was common within that former nation. If you don't think this is the right approach, suggest an alternative for discussion, please. General Ization ^Talk 21:48, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Nationality issues are always difficult. Czechoslovakia existed before the Communists took over. The ethnicity of a person is not determined by geography. We don't really know Ivana's ethnicity. For all we know she could be part Slovak. The information is that her father was Czech and her mother was Austrian. That would make her only part Czech. Czechoslovakia was the country she was born in. On the other hand, she left the country in 1972 on an Austrian passport. She clearly had Austrian nationality. However, I think that Czech is the best description as it is simple and in common use, even though it is misleading.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:08, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

@MelanieN: My sense is that, of the editors you invited to try to achieve consensus, we have found it around the construction [[Czechs|Czech]], the one currently in use at the subject paragraph. General Ization ^Talk 21:54, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Fine. I'm not the referee here, much less the judge; I just wanted you all to work it out. Good job, all. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:14, 20 January 2019 (UTC)