Talk:First presidency of Donald Trump/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions about First presidency of Donald Trump. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

→

The lede is outdated re: Mueller Report

This text is in the lede:

According to Trump appointed Attorney General William Barr's summary of the report presented to Congress in March 2019, the Mueller Report found no evidence that Donald Trump or members of his campaign "conspired or coordinated" with Russia, although Russia did attempt to influence the 2016 election in Trump's favor. Also according to Barr, the report did not conclude that Trump criminally obstructed justice, nor did it exonerate him.The New York Times reported on April 3 that some members of the Mueller investigation had told associates they believe Barr's letter did not adequately portray their findings, which they considered to be more troubling for Trump than reported. The next day, the Washington Post reported that members of Mueller's team reported that the evidence gathered on obstruction of justice was "much more acute than Barr suggested." These members of Mueller's team revealed that they believed that the evidence showed Trump obstructed justice, but that the entire team could not draw a conclusion because they lacked a unanimous consensus. They also denied Barr's conclusion that the evidence presented in the Mueller Report was not sufficient to launch a criminal investigation.

It's long and in-the-weeds, as well as outdated. A redacted version of the report has been released and we can simply summarize the findings of the report, including some of Barr's misrepresentations and obfuscation regarding obstruction of justice. Does MelanieN want to write a concise substitute version? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:29, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

A redacted version of the Mueller Report was released on April 18, 2019, with the following findings: The Russian government interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election with the goal of harming Clinton's campaign and boosting Trump's campaign. The investigation examined numerous contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian officials, found that Trump's campaign expected that Russian hacking efforts would benefit Trump electorally, but concluded that there was insufficient evidence to bring any conspiracy or coordination charges against Trump or his associates. On obstruction of justice, the investigation intentionally took an approach that could not result in a judgment that President Trump committed a crime, and thus did not conclude that Trump committed a crime. However, investigators were not confident that Trump was innocent of obstruction of justice, so they did not exonerate him. The special counsel's office concluded that Congress can decide whether Trump obstructed justice, and has the authority to take action against Trump if obstruction occurred.

Hi Snooganssnoogans - I wrote a part about the redacted Mueller Report without the part on Barr. starship .paint (talk) 00:43, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I think shorter yet, no gossip or tone just summary facts and focus to three lines: one stating Russian interference (wikilink); then skip the ‘numerous contacts’ detail above and just jump to “The investigation found no conspiracy or coordination with the Trump campaign, and reported on actions of President Trump potentially raising obstruction of justice (wikilink) concerns.” And end with ‘Attorney General Barr gave Congress notification of the findings and his determination of insufficient evidence of obstruction, then released a redacted version of the report a few weeks later.’ Since Barr is the AG, it was his actions for the final steps - what actually results from the report and whether to release the confidential report. I don’t think that he made a ‘no obstruction’ decision should be left off. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:58, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
That version is fine by me. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:50, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans, Starship.paing, and Markbassett: Thanks for the ping. We need to work not just with the lede but also with the text, since the lede is supposed to summarize the text. Unfortunately we have the opposite sitution here: the lede has much more detail about the report than the text. What we have in the article text now about the report is a small paragraph consisting of one out-of-date run-on sentence; it is much less detailed than what is in the lede, and that is backwards. I propose we take all the material under discussion here and move it to the text, in place of that one run-on sentence, replacing it with a sentence or two about the report. I’ll propose something; it will be much less detailed than what we have. Markbassett's suggestion is close to what I have in mind.

I would also suggest we consider whether the Mueller report really belongs in the “Russia” subsection of Ethics, or deserves its own subsection under Ethics. I would favor that, because Mueller also investigated obstruction of justice, not just Russia issues. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:58, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

repinging @Starship.paint: Reminder to self: use page preview. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:59, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

@MelanieN: - text now contains a summary of the Mueller Report. starship .paint (talk) 07:13, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal for the lead (no references since we aren’t using them in the rest of the lead): following “politically motivated “witch hunt”: The special counsel’s final report was given to Attorney General Barr on March 22, 2019, and a two-volume redacted version was released on April 18, 2019. In a letter to congress on March 24, Barr described what he said were the principal conclusions of the report. The released report described the ways in which Russia had attempted to influence the election but said the investigation had found no conspiracy or coordination between the Russian government and the Trump campaign. The report detailed actions by Trump which raised potential concerns about obstruction of justice, without reaching a conclusion as to whether or not those actions amounted to criminal obstruction. Barr said he and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein concluded that obstruction of justice could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. And move all the existing material quoted above to the existing section in the text - where we can work on it more if we want. For example, remove "Trump-appointed" Attorney General; that's an attempt to make a political point. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:29, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

User:MelanieN Looks like a big improvement to me over the present lead, both more current and instead of spending half the lead on this it would be about a fifth, vice Section sizes at top of Talk shows it as 5% of the body. To be fair, this is from past TALK proposals to edit directly to lead, and I think your other suggestion to move to body rather than just delete is a good way to respect the past Talk. I’ll suggest give it at least 48 hours waiting period for any further thoughts or other editors input to show up. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:43, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

@MelanieN: - I would think that these two fragments are absolutely essential the investigation intentionally took an approach that could not result in a judgment that President Trump committed a crime and that investigators were not confident that Trump was innocent of obstruction of justice. Especially since Mueller did reach a conclusion on conspiracy, having reached no conclusion on obstruction of justice begs for context. The average person wouldn’t have expected that Mueller thought he couldn’t accuse Trump of a crime. Hell, I think reports were that even Barr thought Mueller had the authority. Frankly, the no conclusion part seems to be too much Barr-influenced and well. It’s more of neither prosecuted Trump nor declined a prosecution. As such, if I were to include those into your version, with some rearrangement on the Barr letter: starship .paint (talk) 04:56, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

The special counsel’s final report was given to Attorney General Barr on March 22, 2019, and a two-volume redacted version was released on April 18, 2019. The report described the ways in which Russia had attempted to influence the election but said the investigation had found no conspiracy or coordination between the Russian government and the Trump campaign. The report detailed actions by Trump which raised potential concerns about obstruction of justice. As the investigation intentionally took an approach that could not result in a judgment that President Trump committed a crime, while investigators were not confident that Trump was innocent of obstruction of justice, the investigators ultimately neither prosecuted Trump nor declined a prosecution. In a letter to Congress on March 24, Barr described what he said were the principal conclusions of the report, and also said he and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein concluded that obstruction of justice could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

All of this is backed up in the body, with references. Please ping me if you respond, thanks. starship .paint (talk) 07:33, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: I’m OK with adding that context but I think the proposed sentence - As the investigation intentionally took an approach that could not result in a judgment that President Trump committed a crime, while investigators were not confident that Trump was innocent of obstruction of justice, the investigators ultimately neither prosecuted Trump nor declined a prosecution. - is vague and unclear. How about something more specific: Citing the Justice Department’s policy against indicting a sitting president, the report did not call for criminal charges against Trump regarding obstruction, but explicitly did not exonerate him on that issue. It suggested that Congress could pursue the matter if it chose. I’ll add something along those lines to the text as well. Source[1] -- MelanieN (talk) 16:33, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Actually I didn't need to add anything; you have already done a good job of covering the report in the article text. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:26, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Those proposals are still quite long and too elaborate, giving undue detail of the daily back-and-forth for the lead of the presidency article. I would suggest this summary:

Mueller concluded his investigation on March 22, 2019 by submitting his report to Attorney General William Barr. On March 24, Barr submitted his initial summary of Muellers' conclusions, and on April 18 he published a partially redacted version of the full Mueller Report. The report concludes that "the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities." In its second volume, the report documents ten events that could be construed as obstruction of justice by the Trump presidency, but Barr and Rosenstein determined that "the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense."

Comments welcome. — JFG ^talk 21:58, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

While copyediting some other parts of the lead, I decided to push my proposal instead of the unreadable gobbledygook that was in there. Feel free to amend, but please keep it short and factual. — JFG ^talk 22:22, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Nice try, but giving the full treatment to the Barr/Rosenstein conclusion about obstruction while not even mentioning Mueller's conclusion is unacceptable. I'll see what I can to to fix it. Do I understand you to say you have already put it in the lede?? -- MelanieN (talk) 00:06, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

not even mentioning Mueller's conclusion is unacceptable: I didn't mention "Mueller's conclusion" precisely because Mueller made a point of not coming to a conclusion on the obstruction case. We could state that he explicitly refrained from indicting or exonerating the president. — JFG ^talk 12:27, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

OK, it's better balanced now. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:20, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

sigh. Fixing the misstated and vague “submitted his initial summary” back to MelanieN phrasing ‘sent a letter to Congress’ - since submitted is vague on to who, “summary” is wrong, and “initial summary” reads like he’s sent a later one. Otherwise, please reduce the rest to MelanieN shorter version or JFG shorter version or something shorter than those. Shorter. This is supposed to be summary, as in just briefly note body content of investigation happened — not a reiteration of every bit or taking up half the LEAD about it. For “full treatment” of Barr the objection should be against having a full treatment at all and wind up not doing it... not going towards adding a full treatment re Mueller. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:00, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@MelanieN: - another crucial thing (other than mentioning Russian interference) is the Mueller went beyond not recommending a prosecution. Having decided he would not prosecute, he then decided it would be unfair to even accuse Trump of a crime, given that Trump cannot defend himself if there were no charge and no trial. starship .paint (talk) 08:26, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: That's pretty much boilerplate - routine DOJ stuff. He's just explaining why the FBI and Justice Department do not talk about or even acknowledge criminal investigations into a person if they are not going to bring charges against them. Namely, that it is unfair to raise the issue if the person accused is not going to have a chance to formally defend themselves. (That's part of why Comey was criticized so much for his public comments about Hillary Clinton's emails even while announcing there would not be a criminal charge.) The fact is that Mueller lays out pretty clearly, in the report, that he believes some of the instances he describes DO meet all the criteria for criminal obstruction of justice - and is only refraining from saying so because of the DOJ's can't-indict-a-president policy. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:53, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

The last sentence in the last green box is not a neutral presentation of the material. The phrase "could be construed" and the word "determined" stand out in that regard. The previous two green box versions are better, but could be stated more concisely. I think we also need to include the shocking fact that Trump's appointees Barr and Mnuchin have acted in contempt of Congress in assistance to Trump.- Mr X 🖋 11:29, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

See my update below; any better for your taste? The "contempt of Congress" thing is too news-of-the-day to mention here. — JFG ^talk 12:40, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Rebounding on MelanieN's remarks and changes, I have further amended the "conclusions" part. It now reads:

In the report's first volume, Mueller confirmed that Russia interfered to favour Trump's candidacy and hinder Clinton's, and concluded that members of the Trump campaign did not conspire or coordinate with the Russian government. The report's second volume documents ten actions by the Trump presidency that could be construed as obstruction of justice. Mueller did not recommend prosecution on these grounds, citing Justice Department policy against charging a sitting president, but explicitly refrained from exonerating him either. Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein then said they believed the evidence was not sufficient to demonstrate a criminal ~~charge~~ offense of obstruction.

Are we good enough now? — JFG ^talk 12:39, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I think this is a good summary - informs the reader of the essentials without going into excess detail. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:33, 7 May 2019 (UTC) P.S. If MrX doesn't like the phrase "could be construed" as obstruction of justice, we could go back to an earlier wording "raised potential concerns about" obstruction of justice. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:38, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I think "raised potential concerns" is kind of water-down compared to "could be construed as". A legal "construction" is stronger than "potential concerns". Mueller did analyze all these incidents in light of various legal theories and explained how each one could be construed as obstruction. Ultimately we would need a full case and trial to test these theories and reach a verdict, and Mueller declined to push it so far. In turn, Barr and Rosenstein said they did not see sufficient evidence to prove the case. For any other accused person, that would be the end of the story, but because Trump is president, Congress can still play the ball and start impeachment proceedings on the basis of the Mueller findings. — JFG ^talk 17:14, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

No, we are not. You can't just wave off the material about this administration's brazen disregard for checks and balances. The lead needs to cover all significant points about the subject. We cannot write this as if the matter is closed. Also, we don't need to refer to "volumes". - Mr X 🖋 14:45, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

What would be your suggestion? — JFG ^talk 14:51, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Trump appointee Barr a ignored a subpoena requiring him to provide the unredacted report to Congress. Congress voted to hold Barr in contempt of congress (pending the vote tomorrow).[2][3]
Trump appointee Barr refused to appear to testify before the House Judiciary committee.[4]
Trump appointee Mnuchin defied a request to provide Trump's tax returns to the House Ways and Means Committee.[5]
450 former prosecutors signed a letter "saying President Trump would have been charged with obstruction of justice if he were anyone other than the president."[6][7]
The Trump administration "has repeatedly shown nothing but disdain for a fundamental principle of US democracy -- the checks and balances of lawmaker oversight -- in a string of escalating showdowns."[8]- Mr X 🖋 15:43, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
The Trump administration "instructed former White House counsel Donald McGahn not to comply with a subpoena from House Democrats for documents related to the special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation."[9][10]- Mr X 🖋 15:49, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Hold it, MrX. This stuff - or at least some of it, in a more condensed form, rather than the play-by-play reporting you offer here - is appropriate for the article text. Surely a longtime user like you knows that such information has to be in the text before we can even begin to talk about putting it in the lead. In my opinion, none of it belongs in the lead, but we can talk about that after it is in the main article. In a separate, new talk page subsection, not this one; meanwhile I'm splitting this new suggestion off from the discussion above about the wording on the Mueller and Barr reports. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:27, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

MelanieN, obviously I'm not suggesting that we just plunk it all in the lead, which is why I presented it as bullet points. Of course it would have to be in the article also, but we don't have to wait to talk about it. No way can we represent the Mueller report as a done deal, when this entire affair is very much ongoing. I have to run now, but I'll elaborate later.- Mr X 🖋 16:34, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@MrX: And yet you plunked it down into the middle of a discussion about the wording of a sentence in the lead. That's why I separated it off into a separate discussion, which you reverted. But this talk about the stuff you want to add is totally interrupting the discussion (almost to consensus) about the wording of the Mueller report material in the lead. Would you consider restoring the subsection heading, or moving this proposal to a new section? -- MelanieN (talk) 16:59, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Melanie that this should be a separate discussion for article body contents. Contrary to MrX, I reckon that the Mueller investigation and its report are indeed a "done deal", but the political fallout of that is still ongoing. The current feud between Barr, Nadler, Mnuchin, etc. is too hot news-of-the-day to be included in the lead section of the whole presidency, even if this climate can irk some editors' sensitivities (on either side). — JFG ^talk 17:07, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Hold on. Some version of what I wrote absolutely should be included and is every bit as important as Trump appointee Barr's assessment of the Mueller report in the lead. I'm a bit astonished that the discussion has proceeded as if the past 2 weeks never happened. To characterize this as a "feud" tips your hand. Let's work on version of this paragraph that reflects the major facts of this investigation to date, without improperly weighting it toward a moment in time that just happens to be favorable to the false narrative that Trump has been exonerated. What has been proposed so far does not satisfy WP:NPOV. - Mr X 🖋 18:13, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

MrX, we are very close to agreement on improving the wording of what is now in the article. That can be enacted in the next day or so. What you are proposing is a whole new issue - first to add the content to the article and get that to where it is stable, then to discuss whether to add any of it to the lead. That's another discussion for a later time. I don't agree with holding up this current discussion while the "look at what Trump is doing now!" issue gets worked out. I think we should move ahead with the rewording being discussed above, and I suspect there will be consensus to agree with me on that. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:03, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

OK, it's been added. Now we can talk about the other stuff, although I still think it would be better to discuss that under its own heading. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:19, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

It's not a whole new issue. I objected to the proposed wording on NPOV grounds, was asked about that objection, and responded with a specifics. - Mr X 🖋 20:47, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

(Moving a comment here from my talk page) I'm sorry, MrX, but I'm really having trouble understanding your position. The material in the article's lead - those few sentences whose wording has been under discussion at the talk page - is about the Mueller and Barr reports. You haven't made any substantive contributions to that discussion, but you apparently consider the material to be "one sided". I gather what you want is to add a bunch of other stuff, to the lead no less, about Trump's stonewalling of Congress's requests. How is that going to affect the current content or make it less "one sided"? Are you asking people not to improve the content about the reports until all the stonewalling stuff has been thrashed out - which could take a week or more? I'm not trying to be obstinate, I just really don't understand where you are coming from. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:42, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Rather than debate process, I would rather move on to more productive work. I have started to expand the material under 'Russia and related investigations'. Then we can look toward properly representing that material in the lead. I believe that will require condensing the report material even more, to make room for the congressional aftermath. As I'm editing the article, I'm also seeing a lot of opportunity for trimming excessive material, for example, under disaster relief and even some of the earlier material under 'Russia and related investigations'.- Mr X 🖋 21:51, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Fine with me. Good expanding - and yes, there is a lot of stuff that seemed important at the time but can now be trimmed. I will look forward to discussing what you propose to add to the lead. I will almost certainly oppose trimming any of the report material, which is pretty much bare-bones already. But let's discuss it when you are ready; that's the Wiki way. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:53, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm fine with that process as well. — JFG ^talk 23:43, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Changed lede concluded that members of the Trump campaign did not conspire or coordinate with the Russian government. to concluded that the prevailing evidence did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government. Mueller Report noted that investigators had an incomplete picture of what really happened (false/incomplete/declined testimony, deleted/unsaved/encrypted communications) and cannot rule out at unavailable information will change the findings. In the body already. starship .paint (talk) 07:55, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Mueller's reasons for not indicting Trump

@MelanieN: - regarding the investigation not accusing Trump of committing a crime, were you aware that investigators "determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes" (text from Mueller Report)? It's okay if you weren't aware as it wasn't added to the article before (but now it is). I think this is not boilerplate DOJ stuff for any investigation. As such have added Investigators then intentionally took an approach that could not result in the investigation judging that Trump committed a crime to the lede. starship .paint (talk) 08:05, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Of course I am aware of that quote. It adds nothing. It is merely a restating of the reason he gave in the report: First, Mueller said Justice Department policy forbids the “indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting president.” Because Mueller was acting as a special prosecutor within the Justice Department, he said he had to follow this policy. This suggests Mueller believed that no matter what the evidence showed, he did not have the authority to charge the president with a crime. [11] The Mueller team "determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes" because that was the approach they were required to take by DOJ policy. IMO this is meaningless verbiage that adds nothing of value to the lede - and we were trying to un-bloat the lede. But leave it in if you think it is important. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:43, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

@MelanieN: - Mueller would not indict, yes. But he also would not even allege. That's beyond indicting. starship .paint (talk) 14:56, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Bloomberg [12] Having decided he couldn’t charge Trump with a crime, Mueller opted not to say that Trump obstructed justice because the president would have no way to defend himself.
Time [13] Because Mueller’s team can’t indict Trump, it also can’t give him the opportunity for a speedy trial to clear his name, Mueller reasoned. He decided that his team would therefore not make an announcement that Trump had committed a crime
NYT [14] the special counsel said it would be inappropriate to analyze the evidence while Mr. Trump is in office and busy running the country because it would be unfair to accuse him of an offense without giving him an opportunity to clear his name in court.
WaPo [15] They seemed to shy from producing even an internal document that alleged the president had done something wrong starship .paint (talk) 14:56, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Like I said: leave it in if you think it adds something of value. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:56, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I see JFG removed it. JFG, I am all right with keeping this sentence - Starship makes a reasonable argument using Reliable Sources - and I am going to restore it. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:00, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Wait, let's discuss. Starship.paint seems to infer from sources that Mueller bent over backwards to protect Trump and the presidency, despite clear evidence of wrongdoing. That's one explanation. The other explanation is that Mueller simply didn't have enough material to decide that he could bring a successful obstruction case, so he refrained from doing it, a bit like Comey behaved with the Clinton affair ("she was extremely careless, but no reasonable prosecutor would bring charges.") No matter which interpretation of Mueller's wording is correct, that's too complicated, and reeks of opinion, to infer in the lead section. — JFG ^talk 19:24, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

There's nothing mysterious or ambiguous about what he says. No need for inference. He states in plain English that 1) he will obey the Justice Department position that a president can't be indicted, and 2) he will honor the Justice Department/FBI position that if you're not going to actually indict someone, you shouldn't make accusations against them, because they can't definitively clear their name without a trial. No whitewashing, no bending over backwards, just stating the rules he has to follow. On the other hand, his listing of the ten obstruction items, and his analyzing each of them in terms of the criteria for obstruction (several of them meet all three criteria), suggests that he DOES think he has enough material for a case, but just can't say so because of Justice Department rules. He also hints strongly that if he can't bring charges, Congress can. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:32, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

That's still a lot of assumptions. On the other hand we could suppose that if he knew he couldn't indict anyway he probably would not have spent as much time and energy investigating the Volume II incidents. Investigation may have been a done deal after he had busted Manafort and the Russians. I think we'd better wait until he testifies to Congress; pretty certain those questions will come up and every last word he says will be parsed. — JFG ^talk 22:26, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Reply to @JFG: (and inform MelanieN) part 1- Mueller bent over backwards to protect Trump and the presidency, despite clear evidence of wrongdoing - no no no. Have you read the Introduction to Volume II? Mueller puts it in this order: Intro Part 1) He won’t prosecute Trump, via OLC. Intro Part 3) He won’t prosecute Trump, via concerns about affecting Trump’s governance and impeachment. Also intro Part 3) He won’t accuse Trump, since he won’t prosecute, unfair if Trump cannot defend himself in trial Intro Part 4) He looked at the evidence and could exonerate Trump, but won’t. If you can’t understand me, read the TIME source [16]. starship .paint (talk) 23:57, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

My point exactly. Mueller statements 1, 2 and 3 sound very much like bending over backwards to protect Trump and the presidency, while statement 4 concedes that he can't exonerate him either. Exactly like Comey punting on Clinton. — JFG ^talk 00:20, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Then take it up with Mueller if you have an issue. This doesn't preclude it from the lede. Maybe it even strengthens the argument that it should be in the lede. starship .paint (talk) 00:49, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Reply to JFG part 2 - Mueller simply didn't have enough material to decide that he could bring a successful obstruction case - where in the world are you reading this from? This sure as hell isn’t what the Mueller Report said. Even if Mueller had enough material, due to Intro Part 1) and 3), he would neither prosecute nor accuse Trump. starship .paint (talk) 23:57, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The interpretation that Mueller simply didn't have enough material to decide that he could bring a successful obstruction case is kind of what you are describing as step 4 in Mueller's reasoning: He looked at the evidence and could exonerate Trump, but won’t. If he had better evidence, then he could not reasonably exonerate Trump, and would have to either a) press charges, b) or explain that absent the OLC opinion he would have pressed charges. And that's not what he said; he remained totally noncommittal and kicked the ball back to DoJ and ultimately to Congress. The message seems to be "I did a thorough job. Here's all the evidence that I found after turning every stone; it's unclear how this would be successfully prosecuted, so I won't even try. Now do whatever you want." — JFG ^talk 00:15, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

@JFG: reply part 1 - your argument again, ignores that Step 1 (no prosecute) and Step 3 (approach is no prosecute plus no accuse) come before Step 4 (evaluate evidence, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. no exonerate) Again, please, please, read the TIME source, or the actual Introduction to Volume II. Or read this WaPo source: [17] He went on to say that he could have cleared Trump if the evidence warranted, but it seems that no matter how damning the evidence, he concluded it wasn’t his place to accuse Trump of crimes. starship .paint (talk) 00:38, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

JFG, reply part 2. unclear how this would be successfully prosecuted - this is way off-base, and essentially Barr-speak. Suggestion: read less Barr. Barr: the report sets out evidence on both sides of the question and leaves unresolved what the special counsel views as ‘difficult issues’ of law and fact concerning whether the president’s actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction Same WaPo source [18] But that’s not how Mueller explained that decision ... Turns out, though, that Mueller didn’t make the determination that there was a crime because he decided that he shouldn’t in the first place. starship .paint (talk) 00:38, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Reply to JFG part 3 we could suppose that if he knew he couldn't indict anyway he probably would not have spent as much time and energy investigating the Volume II incidents. - wow, JFG you really haven't read the Introduction to Volume II. Second, while the OLC opinion concludes that a sitting President may not be prosecuted, it recognizes that a criminal investigation during the President’s term is permissible. The OLC opinion also recognizes that a President does not have immunity after he leaves office. And if individuals other than the President committed an obstruction offense, they may be prosecuted at this time. Given those considerations, the facts known to us, and the strong public interest in safeguarding the integrity of the criminal justice system, we conducted a thorough factual investigation in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available. The investigators have anticipated your concern and rebutted them. starship .paint (talk) 23:57, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh I don't have any concerns, no worries. Just trying to understand Mueller's reasoning. The paragraph you just quoted simply clarifies that (paraphrasing with simpler language) "The President may have committed a crime but since we can't legally prosecute him, the question is moot; we just assembled the fullest possible extent of evidence and will leave it there for others to decide whether there was indeed a crime, and if yes then whether/when/how it should be prosecuted." I see only two logical interpretations to what he wrote so far. For my own part, I don't know which one is correct but I rank them both as plausible. On your side, you seem to express that both interpretations are likely incorrect. So what is the alternate logical explanation you see that I apparently missed? The fact that Mueller says in essence "I can't prosecute anyway so I'll just drop all the evidence here, along with all the legal theories my team came up with, that could be advanced in a future trial." is wholly compatible with my second interpretation. Again, it's too soon to cover this in the lead, precisely because it can be interpreted in so many ways. This will hopefully be clarified after Mueller gets grilled on the Hill. — JFG ^talk 00:37, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

@JFG: - please insert into your above comment your two logical interpretations. Then I will delete this comment of mine and reply properly. starship .paint (talk) 00:52, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

OK. We're deep in forum territory, though. For the sake of thread clarity I won't refactor prior comments. Rest assured that I have read everything. It's one of these complex subjects that can be interpreted in several ways, and we have seen indeed several different interpretations since the report came out. Here are the two I outlined above, which both match the facts as reported by Mueller so far. I'll throw out an extra two that I find less plausible but may yet be proven correct after we hear from Mueller:

Logical interpretation #1: Mueller found clear evidence of criminal liability in at least some of Trump's Volume II actions, but decided not to prosecute him because it would destabilize the presidency/the country. Instead, he preserved all the evidence and let others determine what to do next.
Logical interpretation #2: Mueller found many questionable actions, but did not develop enough evidence to build a solid case of criminal obstruction; he explained all the legal theories that may have been used, and found none of them to be clearly prosecutable. In this interpretation, the OLC position was indeed a blocking factor, but Mueller still wouldn't have prosecuted absent the OLC letter. (As you correctly pointed out, that's what Barr has claimed about their conversation, and no doubt Mueller will be pressed to explain his thinking in his own words during the upcoming hearings.)
Logical interpretation #3: Mueller really found everything he needed to indict Trump on obstruction of justice, but his hands were tied by the OLC. This contradicts what Barr reported of his phone call with Mueller, as he told us Mueller said that even without the OLC constraint he still would not have pressed charges. But of course Barr may be lying, in which case Mueller will promptly correct the record when he testifies.
Kind-of-illogical interpretation #4 (cue Spock's face): Mueller engaged in a strange bout of circular reasoning, by first deciding he would not prosecute, and then after looking at all the damning evidence of criminal acts, stated that he could not prosecute because that's what he had decided in the first place.

Looking forward to further insights you may provide. And especially to what Mueller will say next week. — JFG ^talk 01:33, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

First, JFG here's a quote from the Mueller Report: The evidence we obtained about the president's actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Now, I will address your interpretations. starship .paint (talk) 02:09, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

That's perfectly consistent with any of the four interpretations. — JFG ^talk 11:06, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Logical interpretation #1 - Mueller found clear evidence of criminal liability in at least some of Trump's Volume II actions - we don't know, he refused to say. decided not to prosecute him because it would destabilize the presidency/the country - rejected as it's not the full picture - it does not account for OLC opinion, does not account for preempting impeachment. Does not preclude inclusion of the lede fragment - does not stop Mueller from producing a mere accusation.

Logical interpretation #2 - did not develop enough evidence to build a solid case of criminal obstruction - rejected as pure conjecture. Quotes from the report supporting this? Without support from the actual report, it does not preclude inclusion of the lede fragment.

Logical interpretation #3- Mueller really found everything he needed to indict Trump on obstruction of justice - we don't know, he refused to say. his hands were tied by the OLC. Does not preclude inclusion of the lede fragment - OLC does not stop Mueller from producing a mere accusation.

Kind-of-illogical interpretation #4 - speaks for itself. Does not preclude inclusion of the lede fragment - does not stop Mueller from producing a mere accusation. starship .paint (talk) 02:09, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

@JFG: - after writing all this I think you (and I) have missed my original point. You wrote that this section is about Mueller's reasons for not indicting Trump - it's not. It's not about the evidence at all. It's really about Mueller's reasons deciding not to judge Trump before he had even seen the evidence. we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes. The threshold step under the Justice Manual standards is to assess whether a person’s conduct “constitutes a federal offense.” U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Justice Manual § 9-27.220(2018) (Justice Manual). Fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment when no charges can be brought. A judgment isn't an indictment (see the last quoted sentence). starship .paint (talk) 06:02, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Right, a judgment is not an indictement, but an indictment is a prerequisite to a judgment. You're putting a lot of weight into Mueller saying "I refrained from indicting because then a judge may have agreed with me." That's not how a prosecutor operates: he makes his best case, and then the defense make their best case, and eventually a judge makes the decision. Why did Mueller not do what a prosecutor is supposed to do, and instead wrote a bunch of excuses to explain away why he didn't do it? He said there are "difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining" criminality or lack thereof, so we are none the wiser. That's a mystery, given what we know so far, so of course people jump up and down interpreting Mueller's stance in various ways. I'm arguing that most of those explanations are a matter of opinion and guesswork at this point, and therefore not suitable for the lead section. To ease further analysis when new facts emerge (especially after we all hear from Mueller himself), I have laid out above 4 possible explanations, and you seem to disagree with all of them. So what is your alternative explanation? — JFG ^talk 10:59, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Nope, it is the judgment that is a prerequisite to an indictment, not the other way around. In this case a judgment is not Mueller being "judge and jury", it's just Mueller accusing Trump of a crime. My explanation is already stated, and it follows the report. starship .paint (talk) 01:12, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

1) Mueller will not prosecute (Vol II Intro firstly and thirdly)
2) Mueller will not accuse (Vol II Intro thirdly).
3) Mueller looks at the evidence (Vol II fourthly).
4) Mueller does not exonerate (Vol II fourthly). starship .paint (talk) 01:12, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Looks like Mueller has taken the principles of NPOV, NPA and NO ASPERSIONS to heart: he could be a great Wikipedian.

— JFG ^talk 01:50, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Break

Oh for heavens sake! This quibbling about what Mueller actually meant by what he said reminds me of a “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?” debate and it is pure FORUM stuff. Not to mention Original Research/Analysis. The only issue here is whether or not to include a phrase along the lines that Mueller “determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes". I originally opposed it, but later accepted Starship’s argument and sources supporting it. JFG has been singlehandedly opposing it. When I added a version of this phrase “per talk page” (reasoning that there were two of us in favor of the phrase and one opposed), JFG removed it saying “This is still under discussion. Feel free to join in”. I already had joined in, stated my position, and I haven’t seen anything in your interminable parsing and interpreting of Mueller’s words to change my mind. IMO Mueller stated clearly and plainly why he wasn’t going to make a criminal accusation against Trump - because Justice Department limitations prohibited him from doing so - while hinting strongly that a criminal indictment could be issued if Trump wasn’t president, and that Congress could, if it chose, make good use of the evidence he so carefully laid out. Thus, he intentionally (because he had to as an employee of the Department of Justice) took an approach that could not result in a judgment that Trump committed a crime.

Let’s cut to the chase here, and possibly hear from some more people. Here's the issue: I changed the last paragraph in the lead from

Mueller did not recommend prosecution on these grounds, citing Justice Department policy against charging a sitting president, but he explicitly did not exonerate Trump on this issue. to
Mueller did not recommend prosecution on these grounds, because he intentionally took an approach that could not result in a judgment that Trump committed a crime, citing Justice Department policy against charging a sitting president. The report explicitly did not exonerate Trump on this issue.

JFG reverted, so the first version is currently in the article. How do people feel about these two versions? Brief response, please; if you want to join the debating society use the thread above. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:25, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for chiming in, Melanie! I feel there is an important distinction between the first sentence, which states only facts, and the second one, which attempts to go into Mueller's motives. As a reader, I was truly puzzled to read in wikivoice that Mueller intentionally took an approach that could not result in a judgment that Trump committed a crime, and I thought, "how strange that a prosecutor "decides" not to take a path that may result in a conviction! Why?" The answer to that question is still very unclear given the information available. I have laid out four possible explanations, which are all consistent with what Mueller wrote in his report. From your statement in this thread, you appear to believe explanation #3, and that's a perfectly reasonable one. Just be aware that other readers may believe explanations #1, #2 or #4 as well, and it's not Wikipedia's job to tell them which one is correct. Especially not in the lead section of such a touchy subject. — JFG ^talk 23:42, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

@JFG: Look at the Mueller Report on Vol II Page 2: we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes. Look at the article: intentionally took an approach that could not result in a judgment that Trump committed a crime. I think they are the same, if you disagree, let's use the actual quote. No motives, just facts. Secondary sources: TIME, Bloomberg, WaPo, AP starship .paint (talk) 01:04, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

This sentence is also a repeat of what is stated more elegantly in the prior sentence: Mueller did not recommend prosecution on these grounds, citing Justice Department policy against charging a sitting president. Adding this lengthy and confusing sentence does not help with understanding Mueller's rationale. By the way, the byzantine logic is not "the same" between the report's quote and the wikivoice sentence. My head hurts just deciphering this exercise in the fine arts of weaseling. — JFG ^talk 01:44, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

@JFG: "how strange that a prosecutor "decides" not to take a path that may result in a conviction! Why?" If you find it strange, you should argue to include it. The Mueller Report does answer you, on Vol II Page 2: Fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment when no charges can be brought ... a prosecutor’s judgment that crimes were committed, but that no charges will be brought, affords no such adversarial opportunity for public name-clearing before an impartial adjudicator. End of story, anything else is speculation. This is reflected in the body (won't quote, this is long enough). Secondary sources: TIME, AP, NYT, SFgate, NYmag. starship .paint (talk) 01:04, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh, if Mueller's top concern was fairness to Trump, then we're on explanation #1, but I think reality is closer to #2 a-- MelanieN (talk) 04:50, 12 May 2019 (UTC)nd Melanie leans towards #3 (if I read her argument correctly); some other reader will think it's #4, especially because the way the sentence looks like circular logic. Again, this convoluted sentence brings no extra value to readers, it's just guesswork, and your guess is as good as mine. The Mueller report is a Rorschach test.

Obviously you won't convince me and I won't convince you. Let's hear from other editors, as Melanie requested. — JFG ^talk 01:44, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

@MelanieN: - the order of the second proposed sentence should be changed for accuracy. Mueller did not recommend prosecution on these grounds, citing Justice Department policy against charging a sitting president. Further, Mueller intentionally took an approach that could not result in a judgment that Trump committed a crime. The report explicitly did not exonerate Trump on obstruction. Please see my post above (CTRL-F - 01:12, 12 May 2019) for the order. starship .paint (talk) 03:57, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

No, I don't like that... as if the "intentional approach" was something separate from the "Justice Department policy" reason. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:50, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

<groan of frustration> I set up this "break" section to be a place where people, maybe even other people besides you two, could simply state what they think the article should say (the actual purpose of a talk page) without getting caught up in the byzantine and repetitive arguments in the thread above. But instead of honoring that request, here the two of you are, continuing your hairsplitting and what-he-meant-was debate, and completely defeating my purpose in starting a new thread. Would you all consider moving these discussions about explanation #1 and explanation #4 and so on into that thread? Or striking them as duplicative of the above? So that other people can chime in without getting caught up in an endless debate? I have already said that I think that kind of talk is analysis and OR, which completely ignores our role as an encyclopedia: to report what Reliable Sources say, not to do our own analysis of what we think they meant. How about this: we directly quote the passage Starship just quoted? That way Mueller speaks for himself and everybody can do their own analysis. Personally I would rather use the secondary source reporting. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:50, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

So: Mueller did not recommend prosecution on these grounds, and "determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes". Mueller cited Justice Department policy against charging a sitting president, but he explicitly did not exonerate Trump on obstruction. starship .paint (talk) 05:17, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

How about we stop debating, and just wait until more precise information emerges out of the Mueller testimony in a few days? — JFG ^talk 07:57, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

1) It really sounds like you're blocking the fragment because you can't understand it and need Mueller to explain? Even when the reliable sources already explained it (this lays it out best). So I brought reliable sources above, you brought your own speculation. Is that equal? starship .paint (talk) 09:51, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

2) Mueller's testimony isn't going to change the report's conclusions. Even if he accuses Trump of a crime in his testimony, then it would be his testimony being notable, but the report remains the same. starship .paint (talk) 09:51, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

OK, here's where we stand. Starship and I are not in agreement about what to add to the lead, and JFG opposes adding anything, so unless other people have an opinion, this is a no-consensus situation and it stays out. In any case, starship's point, including the quote, is already thoroughly spelled out in the text - including eight references for that one point, which may be WP:Citation overkill. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:30, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Mueller’s statement

Transcript: [19] I quoted relevant parts, TL;DR - read the bold part.

It explains that under long-standing Department policy, a President cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional.
Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view, that too is prohibited. The Special Counsel's Office is part of the Department of Justice and, by regulation, it was bound by that Department policy.
Charging the President with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider.
The Department's written opinion explaining the policy against charging a President makes several important points that further informed our handling of the obstruction investigation. Those points are summarized in our report.
And I will describe two of them:
First, the opinion explicitly permits the investigation of a sitting President because it is important to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents are available. Among other things, that evidence could be used if there were co-conspirators who could now be charged.
And second, the opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting President of wrongdoing.
And beyond Department policy, we were guided by principles of fairness. It would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of an actual charge.
So that was the Justice Department policy and those were the principles under which we operated. From them we concluded that we would not reach a determination – one way or the other – about whether the President committed a crime. That is the office's final position and we will not comment on any other conclusions or hypotheticals about the President.

@JFG and MelanieN: - I hope this quotation from Mueller’s statement today (link at top of section) can inform your thinking, straight from the man himself. I will remind you that the report states investigators determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes. The Mueller investigation would not accuse Trump of a crime - that is crucially important. starship .paint (talk) 23:27, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Is this still about adding your multi-sentence version of his reasoning to the lead? Man, you don't give up, do you? Isn't your long version already in the text in full, and a summary sentence in the lead? That's the way it should be. This article is about his entire presidency; one sentence in the lead is all we should have. These quotes change nothing; that's exactly what he said in the report. Virtually word for word. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:43, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

MelanieN - if I can't persuade anyone, there is naturally no chance of success. Even if I will not persuade you, that's alright. It's just to inform you that Mueller's decision not to accuse was beyond Department policy. You seemed to indicate that it was DOJ policy earlier. starship .paint (talk) 00:09, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

These are not "speech critiques"

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Presidency_of_Donald_Trump&diff=899604336&oldid=899596275

They are factchecks. I can add the WaPo factcheck showing Trump has repeated similar assertions 134 times, if desired.

This edit should be restored. soibangla (talk) 17:17, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Soibangla - If you’re trying to discuss with me, you should ping me. As to your post above, you’ve missed the point of my objection that it certainly is not a statement of the economy so does not belong. Neither calling it cherry-picked commentary by Trump nor straw man criticisms of his speeches nor fact-checks nor whatever else you care to call this is the edit giving information on the economy. Just another instance somebody claims ‘Trump said something wrong’. As side issues, (a) Nice WaPo is more open but the proposed content does not paraphrase that cite’s content “while certainly something to brag about” part nor ‘by just about any measure there was some better point in history’, and (b) it still doesn’t have WEIGHT enough for inclusion. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:33, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Soibangla - It's been a few days and no discussion to address my concerns so I removed your edit from top pending further talk or time. This definitely is not section-lead material. It is not even giving economic information or an overview, have enough WEIGHT to be DUE a mention, and as written misportrayed the cites -- it did not convey that the economy is "something to brag about" nor that they are picking on particular measures where it is not. (By other measures it is hitting records.) Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:58, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Markbassett - I've diversified the sources, noted the claims started from June 2018, noted 130+ of these claims, and shifted the sentence accordingly. I have also added the unemployment data written by you, with some wording changes. starship .paint (talk) 10:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Mmm, seems a separate item from whether the first is due/speech criticism but guess adding something of other views is something... ? Markbassett (talk) 12:42, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I think it's definitely worth including; it's extensively sourced and provides vital context to the section, since it summarizes both Trump's own view on his economic record, and how reliable sources have responded to or characterized that view. --Aquillion (talk) 04:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Inaugural day protests in the lead?

There has been some disagreement at the article about whether to add this sentence to the first paragraph of the lead: The largest single-day protest in the history of the United States was against Trump's Presidency the day after his inauguration.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/01/womens-march-protest-count/514166/|title=The Exhausting Work of Tallying America's Largest Protest|last=Waddell|first=Kaveh|newspaper=The Atlantic|access-date=February 8, 2017|language=en-US}}</ref> Time frame:

June 5, 20:37: User:Lordstevenbalogh added it. Edit summary: Added the sentence re: inauguration protest to leading paragraph. The protest was the most massive collective action of the people of the U.S. and it was in direct response to Trump's presidency. Such a fact seems appropriate in the first paragraph of the page/
June 5, 20:42: I removed it. Edit summary: this is OK in the article text but not in the lead
June 6, 18:20: Lordstevenbalogh restored it. Edit summary: "nope" isn't enough to remove a major popular event in response to everything this page is about from the lead.
June 6, 13:22: User:Toa Nidhiki05 removed it. Edit summary: Not remotely important enough for the lede.

Per WP:BRD it is now time for discussion. Per the discretionary sanctions on this page, this is a challenged edit and we need consensus to restore this sentence to the article. My opinion: I favor leaving it out of the lead. (It is already in the text.) What do others think? -- MelanieN (talk) 18:31, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

It definitely isn’t important enough for the lede, let alone the first paragraph. It’s not really relevant to anything and had no lasting impact on anything related to Trump’s presidency. Toa Nidhiki05 18:32, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Melanie, thanks for setting this up. I was actually doing the same thing but you beat me to it and did it better! One thing I'm struggling with is that you both seem to think it wasn't important enough. In response, I would like to point out that it was the largest collective action of Americans, ever . . . and it was in direct response to his inauguration. I fail to see how that is less important than the fact that he was a reality TV show personality—which is in the lead's second sentence. To Toa Nidhiki05's point, I don't see how the fact that he was a reality TV show star is actually relevant to anything or had any lasting impact on anything, let alone his presidency. The information provided by the fact that he was a reality show personality is similar to the information provided by the protests: context. Except, in the case of the protests, they were historical events in response to his presidency that show how his inauguration was received by the American public. If we're worried that the paragraph is too long, I would argue the last two sentences in the paragraph, that he's a liar and his approval ratings are generally low, are minutia that can be relegated to their sections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordstevenbalogh (talk • contribs) 21:14, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

To MelanieN's point, I don't think redundancy should be a disqualifying for content for the lead paragraph. If it is, then more of the lead needs to be edited. --Steven 21:39, 6 June 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordstevenbalogh (talk • contribs)

I wasn't arguing redundancy. Quite the contrary: EVERYTHING that is in the lead should also be in the article text. The lead is supposed to summarize the most important things in the text. Importance is judged, in part, by how much WEIGHT has been given to the information by media and by our article itself. On that basis, we should not include this sentence. But we also should not include the fact that he was a businessman and TV personality; it's not even in the article. We should have some kind of summary about personnel issues - cabinet and staff appointments, staff resignations, judicial nominations. I mean a summary, not individual appointments. We should have less detail in the lead about the Mueller investigation, although there should be something. Is anyone up for a larger discussion about what kind of information does and does not belong in the lead, based on the definition of the lead as a summary/reflection of the article? If so we should start a separate section. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:16, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I guess sort of obviously, I am up for that discussion—though I also recognize that I'm pretty much a n00b around here. Maybe I am slowing things down now with all of these inquiries and I would be careful about doing so in any larger discussion. I want to apologize for my tone ahead of time: I disagree about how important the protests are to characterizing Trump's presidency and I don't know how to argue that without becoming passionate—it's not a reflection of my attitude toward either of you, I think you're both fantastic editors. I am having difficulty with the weight thing. It seems WP:WEIGHT's conception of weight is with regard to viewpoint. Maybe that's not what you're talking about because it is an objective fact that those protests were the largest in US history—I don't see how viewpoints figure in. Same with what the protests were about: they were protesting Trump's presidency. I see the protests as fitting in with MOS:BEGIN when it says the opening paragraph "should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it." There's more about weight and balance in opening paragraphs in WP:PROPORTION where it says that even verifiable and impartial events should not have a disproportionate impact on their articles, especially with regard to recent events. However, WP:Recentism shows that it is an on-going debate as to what qualifies as such material. One type of information that qualifies are recent events that appear to some editors as pivotal but are barely remembered by anyone, a few months later. Surely, the protests don't qualify as one of those events—their historical value is that there have not been any larger protests in the history of the US. They didn't result in impeachment, true. They didn't create a coalition of Americans against Trump that has impacted the Presidency since the inauguration BUT—it seems like journalistic malpractice to not mention the largest protests in the history of a country when they were about a President on that president's page. I would say that sort of contextual information is even more important than the election results that immediately precede it. He lost the popular election by 3 million and it spurred the protests but the actual atmosphere in the US is not contained in that ~~figure~~election results—so many people were so outraged that we had the largest protest EVER. --Lordstevenbalogh (talk) 02:13, 7 June 2019 (UTC); edited 04:26, 7 June 2019 (UTC) (edits for clarity: I sometimes think faster than I type and miss the end of a sentence.)

@Lordstevenbalogh: - I don't see how the fact that he was a reality TV show star is actually relevant to anything or had any lasting impact on anything, let alone his presidency - it surely had a huge lasting impact on Donald Trump's life, that's why it's there. It made him popular. The wider public do not really care about real estate developer, but they do care about celebrities. Had Trump been an unknown real estate developer he most probably wouldn't have won the presidency. starship .paint (talk) 02:15, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

That's a good point. However, if it's about the 2016 election, shouldn't it belong in 2016 United States presidential election? This page is about his presidency and I would argue that the fact that they were the largest protests in the history of the US offers some real color about the conditions his white house started with. I actually agree with you, I don't think his past as a reality TV show celebrity is irrelevant to understanding his presidency, BUT, it didn't happen while he was in office and measuring its impact on his presidency is a tough thing to quantify, just like quantifying the importance of the protests. Both provide context and my argument is that the protests provide context valuable enough not just for the body but to be in the lead. I haven't seen anything in the guidelines or policy that challenges that.--Lordstevenbalogh (talk) 04:26, 7 June 2019 (UTC); edited 15:36, 7 June 2019 (UTC) (for clarity)

@Lordstevenbalogh: - apologies, I thought we were on the Donald Trump page. I can see how his background as businessman and reality TV star is less relevant on this page... in fact, they are not even mentioned in the body ...! If no one can insert that into the body, it has to go from the lede. starship .paint (talk) 04:50, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint and MelanieN:I feel heard: I think the protests are important contextual information. I'm unsure if I've managed to convince anyone. It seems that in the course of this discussion, we've uncovered that the lead paragraph needs to be re-thought a little. Where do we go from here? I can take a look at the other presidency pages and see what sort of information they have in their leads. --Lordstevenbalogh (talk) 15:36, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

@Lordstevenbalogh: - yes, go ahead and look at the other ledes. Perhaps we could also consider a more general statement about the protests against Trump, if that is possible? starship .paint (talk) 04:19, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: I am new here and I'm still learning about how NPOV works but watering down facts isn't what I'm looking to do as an editor and that's what it feels like the conversation just changed to. I'm not sure what that would accomplish or which pillar inspired the idea but I would fight stating anything less than the truth. --Lordstevenbalogh (talk) 04:46, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

@Lordstevenbalogh: - there's plenty of truth in the article, not everything is in the lead. Read WP:LEAD - summary of its most important contents - obviously, what constitutes most important contents is a point of contention in itself. I'm not trying to water down anything. starship .paint (talk) 04:49, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: I am having a hard time thinking of a way to summarize the point anymore than the way I stated it. That's what put me back on my heels. I'm open to suggestions.--Lordstevenbalogh (talk) 05:04, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

@Lordstevenbalogh: - as I see it, the other editors who have weighed in so far think that this inaugural day protest is not important enough. Well, if one protest against Trump is not important enough, perhaps the sum total of all his protests will be important enough for other editors. The lead of Donald Trump says His election and policies have sparked numerous protests. Perhaps, we could include that, with a bit more elaboration. starship .paint (talk) 13:54, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: I understand your point and I understand that we have to reach some form of consensus and it feels like 2 on 1 on this point, though @MelanieN: hasn't engaged in a little while. I am just baffled though. The reason why I think it should be in the lead is not to show that protests against Trump happened at all, that's absolutely not lead worthy information—it's the that the largest protests in the history of the country he is now president of were in response to his inauguration. It's as much about those particular protests as it is about Trump. The way I see this information is the same way that I would see a wikipedia page about, for the sake of analogy, a sailor's career: the fact that the sailor survived the largest hurricane known to man is noteworthy information providing unique insight into that sailor's career worthy of his career page's lead. Changing the sentence where that is stated to say that he survived hurricanes lumps that sailor right back in with every other serious sailor. At that point, that information is mundane and certainly doesn't belong in the lead. Additionally, unlike hurricanes, those particular protests had a singular purpose and it was about Trump's presidency. I'm not saying that we make this page about those protests but there must be some reciprocity between a page for those protests and the page for the subject of those protests. Honestly, anything less is misleading. I don't see how you can dismiss the largest protest ever and advocate for rewording to sound like any other protest. The point is not to say that Trump has been protested like other president have been—the point is that Trump very inauguration moved more people to protest a president than Vietnam did. --Lordstevenbalogh (talk) 16:56, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I've said my piece, and I thought I was understood. Your response makes me feel as though my message didn't actually make it across. I feel as though I am repeating myself and I'd rather not waste your time doing that. I am also a little bit frustrated because I have only ever heard that those protests weren't important enough but never why that should be the case. All I know is that at least 3 million and as many as 5 million people were so disturbed that they took to the streets and the wikipedia page covering the very reason they took to the streets doesn't reference this fact because of only two people. I am discouraged from continuing in this discussion because it feels like a concerted effort to reword the information into a generic statement that leaves it open to future removal from the lead on the grounds that protests against presidents are too common to include in all presidency pages. I came here for a good faith discussion of the merits, not repetition of our respective positions or temporary concessions that can be easily reversed in the future. --Lordstevenbalogh (talk) 16:56, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

My opinion hasn't changed: this fact is important enough to include in the article. It is not important enough to include in the lead of this article which is about his presidency. Although I hope is in the lead of Protests against Donald Trump and possibly Inauguration of Donald Trump. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:26, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Now that I read about the 2017 Women's March - a spokeswoman said: We’re not targeting Trump specifically. It’s much more about being proactive about women’s rights. Had it been the Anti-Trump march, I would have supported inclusion. But as it is, this is tenuous. starship .paint (talk) 23:55, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

The official guiding principles and vision of the women's march doesn't mention Trump by name. Archived link from its wikipedia page. However, it is absolutely clear that it was a rebuke of Trump's policy goals and in direct response to his treatment of women. I don't see how any of the protest's principles could even remotely have a chance of being seriously considered by Trump. Many of those principles have nothing to do with gender equality. The marches were more than about women, they were a protest for every social initiative and human rights issue that Trump stated he wants to rollback on during his campaign. March Highlights as Huge Crowds Protest Trump: ‘We’re Not Going Away’, we learned by counting the marches. They weren't against Trump as a person—they were against everything he said he would do as president. --Lordstevenbalogh (talk) 16:14, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

@Lordstevenbalogh: - if you feel so strongly about this, figure out the best proposed wording first, then start a Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Instructions in that page are here. Here's an example RfC Talk:Donald Trump#RfC: False statements. starship .paint (talk) 03:42, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: Thanks for the tip! I was looking through the help pages to see what my options were. Much appreciated! Lordstevenbalogh (talk) 04:02, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Leave it out of the lead, based on WP:LEAD should summarize the major parts of the article. This isn’t a major portion of the article, it only has a line in article body. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:13, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for chiming in @Markbassett:! That's a good point. I hadn't thought of the lead from that perspective. However, there is other content in the lead that is also not just a summary of a section of the article. After thinking about it a little bit, it actually makes sense for the lead to contain more than a summary of the many parts of an article, since the TOC already exists. This makes me think that the lead should provide context for the TOC but I can't help think how useful certain information is to develop a context for its subject matter. There's also certain other information that is just notable enough to be in the lead. For example, LBJ's lead paragraph includes that he was one of a 4 people to serve in all four elected positions of the government. Lordstevenbalogh (talk) 14:14, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Do not include- The claim fails WP:V because the actual number of participants is not known. The Washington Post described it as "likely the largest single-day demonstration in recorded U.S. history" (emphasis mine) source. They were unable to determine the exact number of participants since this was not a single march, but several different marches in different states.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
@Rusf10: - you don't need an exact number. The Atlantic [20] - 3 million is unprecedented. The crowd estimate is drawn from the work of Erica Chenoweth at the University of Denver and Jeremy Pressman at the University of Connecticut ... Adding up their “low” estimates suggests 3.33 million protesters took to the streets ... Knock one million people off the low estimate just for kicks and you’ve still got one of the most massive single-day protests in American history. And they’re still adding data from smaller towns that were late to report turnout. starship .paint (talk) 05:40, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Since WP:UNDUE keeps coming up, I would like to address it more explicitly. That policy only states that minority viewpoints should not be given undue publication. It seems that the first step to applying that rule would be identifying which viewpoint is in the minority and which is in the majority. The fact that the information is damaging to someone's reputation doesn't factor into that determination, neither does an editor's desire for the publication of the information. In the case of the inauguration protests, what are the minority and majority viewpoints? As I've argued above, the circumstances and magnitude of the protests are established fact. Thus far in the discussion, no one has offered any references indicating that the protests weren't the largest or that they didn't happen—so no alternative viewpoint has been presented. The majority viewpoint would therefore be that they happened and that they were a major historical event, because it is the only viewpoint. Discussing WP:UNDUE without presenting an alternative viewpoint with citations is unproductive. --Lordstevenbalogh (talk) 21:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Biden and Kim Jong-Un

Today User:Snooganssnoogans added the following to the intro section of Foreign Policy:

In May 2019, insulted former Vice President Joe Biden (who was leading polls in the Democratic presidential primary at that point), stating that Kim had called Biden a "low-IQ individual" and that Trump agreed with this assessment of Biden.^[1]

Sources

^ "Biden team says Trump taunts undignified". 2019-05-29. Retrieved 2019-06-05.

I was going to delete it as too trivial for this article (or actually too trivial for pretty much any article, but especially one about his entire presidency) but realized I couldn't per 1RR. So it is still in the article. But let's discuss it. Significant, or trivial? ~~In any case the man's surname is not Jong-un, it is Kim, so let's fix that.~~ (Snoogans has fixed that.) -- MelanieN (talk) 22:28, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Trump siding with a dictator and US adversary against a former VP is very significant. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:42, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

This is not significant at all and should not be included. Is anyone going to care about this in a month? Toa Nidhiki05 23:44, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

this is clearly insignificant and should not be included. this didnt affect Trump's positions on foreign policy or anything else. wp:notnews Dy3o2 (talk) 23:18, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I've removed it for now; discussion can continue. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:25, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I think the material should be in the article, but maybe not in the context of NK, but rather in separate section/paragraph devoted to Trump's well-documented pattern of cozying up to dictators: Nine Notorious Dictators, Nine Shout-Outs From Donald Trump Maybe it should be a paragraph under Foreign Policy. soibangla (talk) 23:32, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

On its own, it's not nearly significant enough to be in the article and should be removed. Even six months from now, no one is going to care that Trump said this. Soibangla does bring up a good point that it could reasonably be included as part of a pattern of Trump cozying up to dictators, assuming that reliable sources establish this. Orser67 (talk) 00:44, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

+1 for @Soibangla:'s idea. --KIM JONG UNDO | CONTACT 05:41, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Antifa

You are invited to participate in Talk:Antifa (United States)#RfC: antifa and terrorism, a discussion about whether to include that activities by American anti-fascists were labeled as domestic terrorism by the Trump administration. R2 (bleep) 22:20, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

American English

There does not seem to have been debate about the variety of English that applies here. Given the connection to the US, I think it is clear American English rules the day here. I have taken the liberty of adding a language box to that effect.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:46, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Article needs to cover miserable immigration detention condtions

It's not in the article at the moment, as far as I can see. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:38, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Fine by me, as long as the article on Barack Obama's presidency covers the same ground. SunCrow (talk) 09:43, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Seems unnecessary to me, especially given the already-huge size of the immigration section and the fairly consistent criticism of immigration detention conditions across presidencies. In fact, the last thing this article needs is more coverage of non-vital topics. Orser67 (talk) 20:55, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Seems like too little WEIGHT as yet, or maybe too vague/constant situation to get note — and size issues are against adding marginal topics. Maybe do a comparison and propose it as replacing DHS reorg with a shorter para that conditions and emergency funding happened. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:58, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Certainly worthy of some mention. This is certainly more controversial than anything comparable with Barack Obama. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:20, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

mmm Pretty sure Obama had similar with his own child detention surge, and stories of child abuse at detention centers. Would advise against trying to compare as that would be OR - both are dismal anyway. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:38, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Depends on how you propose addressing it? Obama’s dep of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson said the issue is due to an influx of asylum seekers stressing a system not designed to handle so many people. Dy3o2 (talk) 04:27, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, I added such content but it was reverted.

In June 2019, the DHS inspector general reviewed conditions at five south Texas detention centers managed by Customs and Border Protection, finding squalor, overcrowding, lack of adequate food and clothing and numerous violations of the Flores Settlement prohibiting prolonged detention of children. Inspectors met detainees who were not provided fresh drinking water and were forced to drink from toilets.

soibangla (talk) 17:16, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

That text should be in the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:19, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

We've already seen the results of that attitude, which is one of the most bloated articles on Wikipedia. According to Special:Longpages, this article is one of the three largest non-list articles in the English Wikipedia, and as far as I know there isn't another article longer by readable prose size than than this one. According to WP:Article Size, an article should "almost certainly be divided" when it has more than 100 kb of readable prose, and this article currently has over 150 kb of readable prose. This despite the fact that Trump's presidency maybe/probably/definitely will last for at least another year and a half, and there's barely a foreign policy section in the article. Entirely too much information on this article is devoted to relatively unimportant events that would be better covered by various subpages. Other things undoubtedly belong in this article but are covered in an unnecessary amount of detail, or could be condensed to better explain the policies of the Trump administration rather than giving an undue amount of attention to discrete events/criticisms. In the article's current bloated state, I can't imagine that many readers would find it to be a helpful summary of Trump's presidency. It's past time for the editors of this page to get serious about adhering to WP:Article Size, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTEVERYTHING, and Wikipedia:Summary style. Orser67 (talk) 19:12, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Trump environment speech

This edit was reverted for the stated rationale that it is "unlikely that this speech would be particularly notable for this article."

I suggest Onetwothreeip and other editors read the article in full, in which the Trump speech was characterized as Orwellian and a farce. The detachment from reality is truly astonishing and noteworthy. It should be restored.

During a July 8, 2019 White House speech, Trump hailed "America’s environmental leadership" on his watch, asserting his administration was "being good stewards of our public land," reducing carbon emissions and promoting the “cleanest air” and “crystal clean” water. Experts noted that these achievements were the result of actions taken by his predecessors. That same day, EPA administrator Andrew Wheeler touted the administration's accomplishments by citing data going back to the Nixon administration.

soibangla (talk) 00:13, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

In ten years time, if I were to ask somebody to name a few speeches made by Trump, it would be very unlikely that they refer to this particular one. The construction of this paragraph is also clearly in a news format, when we should be writing an encyclopaedia. This doesn't really summarise the administration's environmental policies well either. I believe you would be much better off if these kinds of paragraphs, and others that you have written, were directed to an article regarding the honesty of Donald Trump's statements. I don't think anybody reading that paragraph can say it has a neutral point of view either. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:21, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

~~I'm beginning to think you and I will never agree on anything, and I don't recall ever thinking that about anyone else I've ever encountered. soibangla (talk) 00:25, 11 July 2019 (UTC)~~ soibangla (talk) 00:28, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

The edit was once again immediately reverted by the same editor, this time with the stated rationales of:

This is just the same paragraph as before Yes it is, and I restored it in full compliance with policy;

you'll need some consensus for this I sought discussion for it per policy, no other editor chose to comment within 24 hours, so no one concurred with your reversion, so per policy I restored it;

The main issue here relates to WP:RECENTISM That's not the same rationale you had for reverting it the first time, which is consistent with a pattern of shifting rationales I have previously noted elsewhere about your troublesome editing style;

but it doesn't honestly seem like it was big news at the time anyway It was on the front page of the NYT and it's a major story with respect to how the president is misrepresenting his environmental policies in an epic fashion.

The edit should be restored. Again. soibangla (talk) 00:41, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Keep it out – Lacks WP:WEIGHT — JFG ^talk 01:15, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

No need to get personal here. I'm not accusing you of breaching policy. I do have to address your personal claims about me though. I haven't shifted any rationale, I said the main issue relates to recentism and that is completely true. I initially doubted its notability, which is completely consistent with there being a recentism issue. A news story being on the front page doesn't mean it's the biggest news story of that day, and indeed the story you're referring to was the seventh in the list for July 9. Either we don't chronicle things just because they appear in newspapers, and the headline referencing George Orwell doesn't implicitly make this notable enough for this article.

I haven't shifted any rationale In fact, you did, just like you did several times on the Trump BLP economy section: you raised an issue, I refuted it, you pivoted to another issue, I refuted that, then you pivoted to another issue. A reasonable person might conclude that your real rationale is WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. soibangla (talk) 01:45, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

As one of my edit summaries stated, I intended to move it to the article regarding the administration's environmental policies but I found that it was already there. This article, as the Donald Trump article as well, are both incredibly oversized so this sort of thing given that it isn't a highly notable event of this administration belongs in a further subarticle, if it belongs on Wikipedia at all.

As I've said before, you and other editors may find that it would be more useful to direct these kinds of stories to an article dedicated to evaluating Trump's trustworthiness and things of that nature. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:23, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

This is a major, momentous story. If your concern is bloat, I recommend you remove other paragraphs in the section that are of far lesser importance. soibangla (talk) 01:37, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

The solution to perceived undue weight is to add other content that balances that perception, rather than removal of content. If providing such balance is not possible, then a reasonable conclusion is that the original content isn’t actually undue, but is instead reflective of reality. Alternatively, if your issue is that it’s not sufficiently significant, well, I just fundamentally disagree with that. His speech was just Orwellian, as any objective observer would agree. soibangla (talk) 02:20, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

This is a major, momentous story. That's where we disagree. This is a completely ordinary news story about Trump. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:40, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

It’s far more momentous than lots of other stuff in the section. Why not remove that stuff instead? soibangla (talk) 01:47, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Remove that stuff too. Having some junk is not a reason that justifies more junk. Markbassett (talk) 02:06, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Keep it out. A bit OFFTOPIC for a Presidency article — this is not an Executive Order or Paris accord, nor diplomatic initiative or any other exercise of Presidential power. This is just yesterday’s gossipy speech criticism, only talking about talking. Nothing of any importance, nothing of significant coverage WEIGHT. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:20, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Keep it out. I honestly don't see how this speech is supposed to be important. My takeaway from this proposed addition is that he's saying he has a good environmental policy. If we included every time a president said they had an effective policy about x, this and other presidency articles would be absolutely gigantic. Orser67 (talk) 15:27, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Nope, this is a unique case, because more than any other president anyone can name, this president is determined to aggressively dismantle the regulatory apparatus around fossil fuels and heavy industry. He has made a deliberate decision to unleash industry at the expense of the environment, a reversal of a decades-long policy American society across the political spectrum had agreed upon, yet he stands before us asserting he's like "The Environment President." This is not a mere example of "every time a president said they had an effective policy about x." soibangla (talk) 17:29, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

The article already has 4 pages that covers actual events and acts about the Paris Agreement, Clean Power Plan, climate change, fossil fuels - and mentions them in LEAD. A speech criticism just isn’t anything worth including. Cheers 107.77.203.123 (talk) 23:01, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Inauguration Day protests in the lead

The consensus is against including the proposed content in the lead owing to editors' concerns about sourcing and WP:UNDUE.
Cunard (talk) 09:36, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Should the lead include the following content about anti-Trump protests on Inauguration Day? The largest single-day protest in the history of the United States was against Trump's presidency the day after his inauguration.^[1]

Sources
References ^ Waddell, Kaveh. "The Exhausting Work of Tallying America's Largest Protest". The Atlantic. Retrieved February 8, 2017.

03:09, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

The debate involved is in the Inaugural day protests in the lead? section. The discussion began with a copy of the edit and the edit history involved. Neither are long. The discussion progressed between mostly 3 total editors, including the original editor, me. With new voices being added as the RfC was being drafted.

Lordstevenbalogh (talk) 03:10, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I edited the RfC. Make it easy on newcomers; they shouldn't have to refer back to a previous discussion. R2 (bleep) 21:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Summary of discussion

The content is not important enough to be in lead paragraph
- It was the largest collective action in the history of the country
It is not relevant to anything
- Trump's presidency was what the protests were about. They were the day after his inauguration.
- If protests immediately after his inauguration aren't relevant then how could some of the existing content in the lead, such as Trump's prior career as a reality TV star, be relevant. Both are actually relevant because both provide contextual information about the presidency.
- If the concern is that the lead would be too long, we can remove other less notable sentences such as those immediately after where the sentence in question was added.
  - The reason for reversion was not redundancy, it was importance. Importance is judged, in part, by how much weight has been given to the information by media and by our article itself. On that basis, we should not include this sentence.
    - WP:WEIGHT's conception of weight is with regard to veiwpoint: the existence of the protests is an objective fact, regardless of viewpoint. WP:PROPORTION states that recent events should not have a disproportionate impact on their articles, even if verifiable and impartial. According to WP:Recentism, what qualifies as disproportionate impact is an on-going debate. One example of disproportionate impact is when some events appear critical to some editors but are barely remembered by anyone a few months later. The protests were not this type of event.
It had no lasting impact on anything related to Trump's presidency

I did my honest best to try to represent everyone's arguments in the shortest and best light. Please do not hesitate to speak up if I have erred.Lordstevenbalogh (talk) 03:10, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Alternate summary of the discussion above: it involved six people, not three. Of the six, four were against including it in the lead and one was leaning against. Only Lord Steven was in favor. Sorry to be so blunt, but I don't want to have to ping all the previous discussants to come here and make their comment again. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:08, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Survey

No, per WP:UNDUE. The focus of the article should be on what Trump did as President. Adoring nanny (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, because this article is about a presidency which began with the largest protest of a new president's installation since the Civil War. The article is about the entire presidency, Adoring Nanny, not just about what Trump did as President. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
No. Fails verification, at least with the proposed source. The proposal is to say that the Women's March was a protest against Trump's presidency. The source doesn't say that. Arguably a BLP violation. R2 (bleep) 21:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
That's a good point. I would like to amend the proposal by adding the following citations: https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/21/the-womens-march-heard-round-the-world/ (see paragraphs 5&6), https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/womens-march-anti-donald-trump-womens-rights-largest-protest-demonstration-us-history-political-a7541081.html (see first sentence), and https://web.archive.org/web/20170125034852/https://www.womensmarch.com/mission/ (which doesn't explicitly state the mission of the protests as anti-Trump but it does state that they were protestings policy ideas that are espoused by Trump and behavior against women that he embodies. --Lordstevenbalogh (talk) 22:04, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Still no, even with those sources. The Foreign Policy and WomensMarch.com sources don't verify the content. The Independent source does, but other sources have described the Women's March as protesting various things, not just Trump's presidency. The organizers said, "We’re not targeting Trump specifically. It’s much more about being proactive about women’s rights." [21] This can't be boiled down neutrally to calling the Women's march simply a "protest ... against Trump's presidency." R2 (bleep) 23:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

That is what the organizers said, but if you look at their mission statement, it's all about opposing Trump's policies. It also literally happened the day after his inauguration, he's known for his sexist attitude, and the election of someone like is probably what it took to mobilize all those people for that cause. If there were protests after Hitler's "election" about racial equality and a variety of other policy points but the organizers said the same thing . . . I wouldn't say those protests weren't about Hitler. As with all things, we can pretend it's correlation, but at some point, an inference is warranted. I'm willing to infer that because of your signature, that comment was written by Ahrtoodeetoo but really, I'm relying on the correlation of users generally signing their comments on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordstevenbalogh (talk • contribs) 23:59, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

No inferences are warranted on Wikipedia. Here, "inference" is a synonym for improper synthesis. We do not draw inferences from sources; we only say what the source says expressly. Wikipedia 101. R2 (bleep) 17:25, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Then let's say what the sources say:
https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/21/the-womens-march-heard-round-the-world/ (see paragraphs 5&6),
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/womens-march-anti-donald-trump-womens-rights-largest-protest-demonstration-us-history-political-a7541081.html ,
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/01/womens-march-protest-count/514166/,
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/27/womens-march-on-washington-dc-guide, https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/womens-march,
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/21/us/womens-march.html, https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/21/politics/trump-women-march-on-washington/,
https://womenintheworld.com/2016/11/11/million-women-march-being-planned-for-january-21-2017-in-d-c/.
And while we are citing to Wikipedia 101: maybe we can also start at least skimming materials that have been cited to see what they say? --Lordstevenbalogh (talk) 17:54, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

No - Partly not suitable for WP:LEAD summary of the article because it's not a significant amount of the article or the topic itself. Partly that as written it fails WP:V - it was noted for promoting a collection of progressive issues so portrayal of it as solely "against his presidency" rings false, vs. say Vox. I'm not even sure '"largest single-day protest" is a good phrasing -- obviously the Million Man March was a larger DC event, and the 15 February 2003 anti-war protests were bigger worldwide and perhaps even in the U.S., and this distinction was not what it was known for ... so 'one of the largest' would seem fine and deserving but as phrased seems like trying hard to come up some abstract statistic puffery that just isn't what it was known for. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:34, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
@Markbassett: I suppose the phrase could be tightened up: "single-day nation-wide protest". I didn't see where either the Million Man March or the 2003 anti-war protests come within 1 million people of the inauguration protests. I don't know what you're basing your understanding of what the protest is or isn't known for on. As for verifiability:
https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/21/the-womens-march-heard-round-the-world/ (see paragraphs 5&6),
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/womens-march-anti-donald-trump-womens-rights-largest-protest-demonstration-us-history-political-a7541081.html ,
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/01/womens-march-protest-count/514166/,
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/27/womens-march-on-washington-dc-guide, https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/womens-march,
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/21/us/womens-march.html, https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/21/politics/trump-women-march-on-washington/,
https://womenintheworld.com/2016/11/11/million-women-march-being-planned-for-january-21-2017-in-d-c/.
I'm just not sure where you get the idea that people don't remember such a large protest, related to such a huge moment for the nation. 2017 Women's March; List of 2017 Women's March locations; Women's March on Portland; Women's March on Seattle. You're correct, it wasn't a concerted effort to create the largest protests ever and so it wasn't known as such at the time or thereafter. Similarly, WWII wasn't an attempt at intentionally creating the deadliest conflict in human history, but here we are. As for the WP:LEAD point: there is other content in the lead that is also not just a summary of a section of the article. After thinking about it a little bit, it actually makes sense for the lead to contain more than a summary of the many parts of an article, since the TOC already exists. This makes me think that the lead should provide context for the TOC but I can't help think how useful certain information is to develop a context for its subject matter. There's also certain other information that is just notable enough to be in the lead. For example, LBJ's lead paragraph includes that he was one of a 4 people to serve in all four elected positions of the government. Wikipedia:Writing_better_articles#Lead_section states "The lead should establish significance, include mention of consequential or significant criticism or controversies". 3 million people protesting seems like a significant criticism to me. --Lordstevenbalogh (talk) 06:42, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Lordstevenbalogh Sorry, still at (a) this isn’t a big enough part of the article for WP:LEAD - it’s just one body line, not in the same league as the amount of article content of lead items Mueller, border wall, separation of families, Tax Cuts and Jobs act, Chinese tariffs, etcetera. And it sort of makes sense this isn’t much space in Presidency article as this was a 1-day March and not a Presidential action or event that went on over months or years. Also, still thinking it was a march to show support for various progressive topics - LGBT, Women’s rights, Global warming, etcetera... see the Vox cite or BBC coverage, and their own March on Washington agenda/policy list ... so calling it solely anti-Trump or protest is incomplete/incorrect wording. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:13, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

No – There have been bigger protests over just the post-war period, and those strings of anti-Trump marches had no tangible consequences. The subject is adequately covered by a few lines in the article body. — JFG ^talk 20:53, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
No The source(s) provided are left-wing and this tidbit doesn't belong in the lede. This is more partisan editing by folks who only spread propaganda rather than build an encyclopedia. (Summoned by bot) Chris Troutman (talk) 13:01, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes: Normally the lede would not be the place for such info (by what I've seen, it should be but a brief summary), but as it is with all the other detail there, it should be included: a presidency beginning to the tune of widespread protest is certainly a remarkable mark on a presidency.

Be particularly carful, though, to differentiate between particular-issue protests (LGBTQ, etc.) organised to coincide with the inauguration, and outright protests against the presidency... but on second thought, the fact that protesters would make a point of planning their event for inauguration day is itself noteworthy (but that context should be noted as well). TP ✎ ✓ 05:09, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

No: Not for the lede as it doesn't seem to be a defining moment of his presidency. Fine for the text, but whether it can be claimed to be the largest protest should be confirmed. Cynistrategus (talk) 03:47, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes as the lede should give a balanced description of the subject's aspects, including major reactions to it. "The largest single-day protest in the history of the United States" is surely one of them. Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
No: The lead is already big enough (too big?) with five large paragraphs of dense information about policies and controversies. Maybe expand the section Transition period and inauguration in that regard. A dedicated article Protests against Donald Trump exists and should give a better overview. It is linked in the infobox on the right of the lead and the infobox on the bottom of the article. Hecato (talk) 09:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Soft No - It certainly is relevant and significant. If it happened to any other president it would and should be in the lede. With Trump he is such a disaster, that there are too many relevant and significant things that we cannot mention them all in the lede. This should be in the article, but we have to draw the line somewhere concerning what should be included in the lede. I don't think this makes the cut.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:31, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
No: The lead is too big already for a president who has been in the office for only two years and a half. It's longer than leads for Obama, GW Bush, Reagan, Eisenhower, Truman, Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson [all served for at least 8 years in the office + some served during major world events -like WW1 & WW2] -it is even longer than leads for major world leaders like Stalin, Mao or Napoleon. If there's one thing this page needs is less journalistic manufactured news and more concise text. This is Wikipedia, not the FilibusterPedia. At the moment -the lead should be cut short, not expanded! --ColumbiaXY (talk) 04:42, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Weak No per the reasoning and source analysis put forth by Ahrtoodeetoo. Resolution of those issues might swing me to a weak yes, but there doesn't appear to be any forthcoming. Chetsford (talk) 22:34, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Extended discussion

Despite my WP:Bludgeoning, I don't think I was able to convince anyone. I can see the "no" polls coming in and listening to the responses. I am tired of making an argument nobody cares about. I still think this is a washing of historical events that is a stain upon wikipedia . . . but . . . nobody else needs to die on this hill with me. I'm ok leaving this discussion open for other editors to chime in but I am also ok with resolving this thread or closing or archiving—whatever is appropriate. -Lordstevenbalogh (talk) 22:55, 15 June 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.

Knee-jerk restoration of 10 kb of trimmable content

The editor Rusf10 just restored 10 kb of content solely for the reason that he disagreed with heading a section with "Muslim ban" rather than the vague "Immigration Order". This is a good example of why editing in American politics is so dysfunctional. If the editor solely disagreed with this heading, he could have changed that and kept the rest intact. I don't particularly care about the heading (although Muslim ban is much more descriptive - our Executive Order 13769 literally states "also known as the Muslim ban"). The trimming should be restored ASAP. I'm certainly not going to continue to do the drudgery of carefully trimming this article if my trimming just gets reverted nilly-willy (coincidentally by an editor who yesterday tried to get me sanctioned over some BS). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:00, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

It is dysfunctional because editors like you constantly try to edit their POV into articles. Did you honestly think no one would object to you labeling the travel ban as a "Muslim ban"? It is a completely partisan label given to the travel ban which also included the countries North Korea and Venezuela which don't even have Muslims. You're the one making controversial changes to the article, its your duty to justify them, not mine.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:07, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Awilley, I have been mass-reverted after undertaking careful trimming on an article that is plagued by size problems. Furthermore, my trim edits over the last few days have received public thanks by editors whom I usually do not agree with on substance. Now I've been instructed by Rusf10 to come to this talk page to justify each and every trim. Would it not be more appropriate if other editors pinpoint specific trims that they disagree with? Because having to explain on the talk page why every trimmed item should be removed makes it a complete waste of time to try to trim this article. It's enough drudgery as it is. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:21, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Snoog, the article is just under the BRD sanction, and the discussion above is sufficient to fulfill the discussion requirement. Russf10 has made it clear what part of your edits they disagree with, and the easiest course of action would be to wait 24hrs and restore the other trims without the contested "Muslim ban" heading while continuing to seek compromise/consensus on that specific bit. ~Awilley (talk) 19:28, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Poor Snooganssnoogans, all I've asked you justification for your edits which include labeling the immigration ban a "Muslim Ban". Instead of acting in good faith and trying to explain your edits, you start whining about how unfair it is you should have to explain your edits and you've called upon a sympathetic admin to help you out. To be fair, I did not object to the other 15 or so edits you made prior to the edits about immigration, so I don't see what the big deal is. Stop asserting WP:OWNERSHIP over the article.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:23, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Another editor restored Snooganssnoogans's edits, and I changed the section's name to "Executive Order 13769." I suppose some other section name like "Travel ban" or "Immigration ban" could also work. Orser67 (talk) 00:04, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

BLP violation. This article is a repository of partisan attack on the president.

I deleted the first of such attacks, based on unreliable sources. This is an incredible NPOV violation, a hit job on the president. (PeacePeace (talk) 00:31, 25 June 2019 (UTC))

I agree. I published another thread to this. This article is incredibly biased and contains much opinion against president that other president's articles do not such as false statements or lies before and during his presidency. Markvrb (talk) 13:34, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Should the section 'First year' be removed and/or merged with other sections?

Given the size constraints of the article, it feels wasteful to have a section which contains so much content that already exists in other sections. I think a lot of it can be cut. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:38, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree with this. Neutrality^talk 01:18, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Thirded. Orser67 (talk) 21:05, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Snooganssnoogans for implementing this . starship .paint (talk) 05:24, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Article incredibly biased against Trump

There are many opinions expressed in this article that are opinions that are not covered in other president's articles such as "many false statements" during campaign & presidency. Also, repealing "environmental protections" Many other opinions not objective. Markvrb (talk) 13:32, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

But these are reliably sourced. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 13:35, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

This whole article is a hit piece on Trump presidency. It is flooded with opinion and citations of opinions by individuals who are adversaries of the president. ***Needs moderator attention ****** Markvrb (talk) 13:38, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Not reliably sourced. This is opinion. Stating that he has made false statements when EVERY admin has done is misleading and highly prejudicial. Obama has made incredibly false statements but his article is untouched . Also citations are one sided without benefit of pro-Trump POV. Markvrb (talk) 13:42, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Have you read our policies? WP:P&G? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 13:52, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I have. I'm also aware that this is a biased article and that I'm not the only one to notice is apparent. This article is mostly anti Trump opinion like watching a prime time MSNBC show. This article does not highlight achievements or anything objectively. It contains opinions and citations about things that have been disproved long ago. (Investigations, legislation, policy disagreements) It's highly inflammatory. Markvrb (talk) 18:39, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

This article addresses environmental & energy policy views from extreme liberal POV. Markvrb (talk) 18:45, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

... extreme liberal POV such as the Scientific consensus on climate change? Your president and administration is harming the environment by removing regulations, is shying away from even acknowledging climate change, is pursuing a pro-fossil fuel energy strategy that goes against mitigating climate change. That this is depicted in reliable sources and ending up here is of no surprise. The Republican Party in the United States is unique in denying anthropogenic climate change among conservative political parties across the Western world, so it would seem that the fringe POV here is.... starship .paint (talk) 05:31, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

July 12 - 15 large-scale removals from article

Will, most especially, those who have been active on this article please take a look at it, and at the history log, as it seems recently gutted, particularly of sources. Lindenfall (talk) 23:38, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

It probably wouldn't hurt for other editors to take a look at exactly what has been removed, but the removals conform to Wikipedia policy, specifically Wikipedia:Article size. That policy states that articles with >100 kb of readable prose size "Almost certainly should be divided." This article is currently at 136kb of readable prose size and thus, more material should be shifted to the numerous subarticles that cover various aspects of Trump's presidency (or possibly simply removed in some cases). Orser67 (talk) 00:30, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Orser67, I saw that it's of an unwieldy size. However, my concerns stemmed from the editor's apparent inclinations, based on User talk:Snooganssnoogans, notes on this page (above), and my personal experience, which led me here (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kirkland_%26_Ellis&action=history). I thought it best that I not be the one to assess the deletions or to reverse any of their edits, all things considered, but feel that the deletions ought be assessed. Lindenfall (talk) 21:40, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

It would appear that this article only contains one POV and is highly prejudicial/biased Markvrb (talk) 13:44, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Articles can have POV. Articles simply have to reflect the majority viewpoint of the reliable sources. If the majority viewpoint has POV, so will the article. It is the editing that has to be NPOV. Editors cannot insert their own POV into the article. They can only insert the POV of the sources in relation to the sources' POV's significance in the coverage. starship .paint (talk) 05:32, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Correction Needed

Under Domestic Policy/Immigration/Reorganization of Department of Homeland Security, the following appears: "Saying he wanted to go in a 'tougher direction,' Trump began a major reorganization of the DHS in April 2019, which included forcing the resignation of DHS secretary Kirstjen Nielsen (ultimately replaced with Customs and Border Protection commissioner Kevin McAleenan). Others who left included Director of Citizenship and Immigration Lee Cissna and DHS general counsel John Mitnick." It was not and is not correct that John Mitnick left DHS; he is still the General Counsel of the Department. See https://www.dhs.gov/leadership. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1003:B102:A346:A8C3:1D8F:5FAB:1BBE (talk) 20:20, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Seems from being too quick to post story-du-jour with cites that were ongoing events so partly rumors and spin. I've already used up my correction for the day - someone else want to fix this and get some cites that are not early partials ? Alternatively, just cut the section - it just seems like yet another story-du-jour rather than a presidential action or significance or any enduring WEIGHT... and the article is tagged as too long so seems a cut might be a good choice. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:58, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

It’s been a couple more days, and I think I will delete the section. This doesn’t seem particularly prominent WEIGHT - a bing for DHS reorganization turned up 2012 and 2009 reorganization’s, and the. 2018 Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency act instead of stories about Neilson. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:47, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Disagree with removing the section. The DHS reorg is relevant to ongoing family separation and putting of children into concentration camps. PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 17:46, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

User:PunxtawneyPickle ??? Don’t see that — the separation part is three sections and two screens higher, with no relationship was in the text or cite connecting them other than the loose want for someone tough on immigration. (Kind of a given.). Most sources I saw said her time was limited once her support / sponsor Kelly was gone, and that it was surprising she had not been replaced before that. Not saying she had been soft on immigration or had opposed President Trump, just that she had no wild success or benefit to him. Which seems all internal power stuff and turnover stuff of no great need to keep in an article wanting slimming down. But if you really want, go to — do the work of replace the text, correct the error, get a better cite for this. I just didn’t see any value except another turnover bit so not worth the space. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:59, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Trump/Fox connection

I note that the Trump/Fox news support is not mentioned in the article - something I've wondered about for some time. I don't watch FOX but when one sees many of the Fox and Friends clips it is quite stunning. Clearly Trump sees Fox as his very own news outlet and FOX has certainly acted in similar manner. Today reading this CNN comment re the relationship, "'We have to start looking for a new News Outlet,' [Trump] tweeted on Wednesday, inadvertently lending credence to critics' claims that Fox is akin to state-run TV." State-run TV --like Russia and China? I wonder if we should put something in the article? Gandydancer (talk) 19:24, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh! Well I guess not then... All's well that ends well - I trust group consensus. Gandydancer (talk) 05:30, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

@Gandydancer: Presidency_of_Donald_Trump#Leadership_style_and_philosophy and perhaps it should also go into Presidency_of_Donald_Trump#Relationship_with_the_media ... like so: [22] starship .paint (talk) 01:45, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

mmmm no, not them alone nor minute trivia. WP shouldn’t be inserting multiple notes of every one-off Trump tweet out there, or selecting just one part of media for scrutiny — particularly not bits of low WEIGHT, not involving real-world events, and not involving Presidency items. A Fox event or RS characterisation might suit, but only as part of NPOV coverage for media in DUE weight. Maybe try having Relationship with the Media section include the other half of press relationships- how the press behaves. Could be some mention of noted general press hostility and multiple events in their behaviour. Right now the article portrays a Trump mention of 91% negative coverage as if it is fake - there is no neutral note that yes, multiple studies noted coverage has been 90%+ negative, starting from before his nomination thru now, nor does the article have any reflection on how extensive and continuous coverage has been. Possibly some mention of Press Secretary and briefings, including discontinuation or limitations. Possibly include mention of NYT was bullied into retracting a headline, or other items of WEIGHT. But no reason to promote a lone tweet above what it is DUE. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:56, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Moving whistleblower and etcetera

I'm moving the Whistleblower complaint from the Foreign Policy section to a new subsection of the Ethics section, plus dequotify it and start streamlining a bit.

It's a decent first draft collection of bits, I think it could use some further work on what is there --

Cites need dates and other fixing, should be at what part they support, and should be something less than 10 cites per paragraph.
But do some prior citing - this was a story back during Obama, so cite there; and a story a couple months ago, so cite there.
Additional streamlining of the step-by-day-by-step accumulated progression to cut out some steps and more to summary.
At least briefly label what a Hunter Biden investigation is alleged to be about. (e.g. He got a directorship with a Ukrainian corporation when Vice-President Biden was involved with Ukraine and Ukrainian aid... is a bit overlong.)
Probably skip Money-for-investigation allegation, as would Ukraine foreign minister has denied that.
Just the facts -- skip any wild speculations or emoting for the cameras
Eventually shrink it to DUE amount -- right now it is story of the week, not seeing anything necessarily more to come, and whatever might come will be additions that make some of this lengthy prologue bits unnecessary.

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:20, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Trump's opposition to transsexualism

The introduction needs to mention that Donald Trump has distinguished himself as the fiercest anti-transsexual president known thus far.[23]--24.99.88.86 (talk) 19:42, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Trump Fighting to Let Employers Discriminate Against Transgender Employees --24.99.88.86 (talk) 19:51, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

ProPublica.org item

Update: We Found a “Staggering” 281 Lobbyists Who’ve Worked in the Trump Administration; That’s one lobbyist for every 14 political appointees, and four times more than Obama had appointed six years into office. by David Mora, Columbia Journalism Investigations October 15, 2019: a ref addition? X1\ (talk) 00:38, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Seems UNDUE - an esoteric statistic from a relative unknown author in a small pub. And it has not been out long so has no time to accumulate importance. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:40, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

@Markbassett: what do you intend by your "small" comment for ProPublica? X1\ (talk) 21:00, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. ProPublica is one of the largest, and certainly most prestigious sources of online journalism, having won five Pulitzers. Mark’s comment leads me to believe that in this case he almost certainly didn’t click the link, and just saw “Columbia Journalism Investigations” in the original post. Mark, if you’re going to evaluate a source, you should actually read it. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 23:16, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Symmachus Auxiliarus Nope, get the facts straight on source and then get a factual perspective on size. First, this says source is indeed Columbia Journalism Investigations, fellowships for circa 10 recent graduates, not a ProPublica employee or editorial control. The prominence from it being published in ProPublica is modest. ProPublica says 18,909 in Alexa Ranking — which is definitely a coup for CJI and Mora but is not “one of the largest”. This isn’t the level of mainstream media, nor in List of most popular websites or top 10,000 websites. The major venues have print or broadcast in addition to larger websites — NYTimes.com at 105 (29 in the U.S.) or FoxNews.com at 218 or BBC.com at 74. Nope, 18,909 is small, not “one of the largest”. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:39, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

p.s. (edit conflicts) but thanks for making the distinction re CJI. That was what mostly drove my initial reaction, and ProPublica is respectably known and usually has a factual data-driven content. But for this article where the topic has many hundreds of millions of google hits and far more prominent cites every single day ... a piece in ProPublica just is not DUE. Though I’m interested and appalled to find out about Trump Town, so now I know there’s a couple Bassetts in their dossiers I can hope do well. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:53, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

What a ridiculous, embarrassing statement to make. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:42, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Eh, better than anything you have added to this discussion. Rather ironic no? Perhaps you should consider if something you are saying is actually worth being said. PackMecEng (talk) 01:59, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Markbassett, Symmachus Auxiliarus, Snooganssnoogans, PackMecEng; if you are interested, I created Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: "ProPublica" (October). X1\ (talk) 19:27, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Secondary coverage: New York Times, The Hill, Politico. That seems sufficient to make at least a mention WP:DUE. --Aquillion (talk) 23:51, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Aquillon - Nope, your perspective is off or perhaps are confusing WP:RS that there are available sources with WP:DUE the proportion of coverage. If you are saying that now there are 5 articles on the topic, well in the case of an article on Donald Trump is how much coverage does this have out of 847 Million things ? Answer : 5 out of 847 Million ? Look, to make it into this article it's simply got to be very much BLP or very much a great big headlines every day for a week thing. That NYT had a signle story on it is psome prominence, but compared to coverage of Russia or Impeachment or all the other things ? This one about an esoteric statistical count is interesting but small, has no BLP impact on his life or apparent enduring note, and for now is just UNDUE. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:57, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Russia and impeachment get entire sections to themselves and mentions in the lead; I don't think anyone is suggesting we devote that much to this. But the weight and reputation of sources and the focus they give it matters - and the New York Times devoting an entire article to the topic (with more broad coverage than just one "esoteric statistical count", one reason why it's good to use secondary sourcing) seems sufficient to justify a few sentences on the fact that, as the NYT puts it, increasingly, though, his cabinet is full of lobbyists. Here's the Associated Press covering it as well. This is better (and broader) coverage than many things already in the article. But, if you don't think this is enough coverage of the unusual number of lobbyists in the Trump administration, tell me what you do think would be sufficient to qualify? We already have more high-quality sources than we could reasonably list on a simple statement or two without people complaining about WP:OVERCITE. --Aquillion (talk) 22:07, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I was on the fence about this initially, but after reviewing the preponderance of sources, this is obviously due a brief mention. This sort of situation is exactly the kind for which WP:WEIGHT was formulated. We’d be me remiss to not include it, given how unprecedented it is, and the extensive sourcing for it. Easily passes the qualification for information embodied in WP:10YT, as well. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 03:46, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Aquillion Okay, AP plus NYT, now makes the count for "281 lobbyists" two major sites. I notice it's just now hit News.Google.Com for three. Much better than the initial just ProPublica, but still... not big-time. I see no headline about it. I do not see it reported at most major outlets, i.e. ABCnew.com, BBC.com, Bloomberg.com, CBSnews.com, ChicagoTribune.com, CNN.com, DailyMail.co.uk, DallasNews.com, FoxNews.com, HuffingtonPost.com, LAtimes.com, NBCnews.com, NPR.org, NYDailynews.com, NYPost.com, Reuters.com, Slate.com, Telegraph.co.uk, TheGuardian.com, USAToday.com, USnews.com, WSJ.com, Yahoo.com (I also see mentions via TheAtlantic and Washington Post, but it's ads or opinion bits not citeable.) So for the moment it seems about 2 out of 25 large venues and I'm still at UNDUE. Give it a few days and see if it gets further coverage. To me it still seems unlikely as it is an esoteric statistic (not directly linked to something of vital interest), a comparison (and generally in this area of WP we seem to be avoiding those), and a expose piece -- and much of the market doesn't go there. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:30, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Followup a day later and I see similar "trump lobbyist cabinet" is covered by MSNBC (I missed looking at them yesterday) and CBSnews. So about 20% of major venues have done either the 281 number story or the AP story wording. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:54, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

For Thor’s sake, link what you claim. This is a consistent issue. We can’t verify your claims unless you present reliable sources. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 07:09, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

[1] "Biden team says Trump taunts undignified". 2019-05-29. Retrieved 2019-06-05.

[2] Waddell, Kaveh. "The Exhausting Work of Tallying America's Largest Protest". The Atlantic. Retrieved February 8, 2017.

[1]

[1]