Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 96

This is an archive of past discussions. 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 90

←

Archive 94

→

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 February 2019

This edit request to Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The following statement is included in this article: "His falsehoods have also become a distinctive part of his political identity.[282]" The cite is to an opinion column in the New Yorker. Including this opinion in the article violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Further, including opinion as fact violates the entire purpose of Wikipedia - to present facts. Finally, this is hardly a consensus opinion. Of course, I understand that Wikipedia editors and administrators are overwhelming liberals who no doubt share the opinion that President Trump is a liar. Nonetheless, the fact remains that the statement is an opinion, not a fact, and certainly not a neutral point of view. The statement should be removed. JohnTopShelf (talk) 21:20, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Not done: Sorry, that section is well cited in reliable sources, and has been discussed here at length You would need to change consensus. O3000 (talk) 21:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Speaking of Opinion articles, there are a ton of statements that are cited from opinion articles. So many that I cannot give an exact number, but somewhere between 50-100 citations, cite Left-Wing opinion pages from multiple sources like CNN and the New York Times. Now full disclosure, I may be one of the few conservative Trump supporters on Wikipedia, but while we may not agree over whether or not it's his fault that Government Workers Missed Paychecks during the last shutdown, or on the veracity of his statements, or even whether or not walls work! But we should agree that any opinion article, on any site, from any source, be they Left-Wing or Right-Wing, Are not and should never be considered a "Reliable Source". An Opinion cannot under any circumstance, be stated as a fact. That has no place in an encyclopedia that strives to be a neutral point of view.Billster156234781 (talk) 20:47, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@Billster156234781: Can you give some examples of cites that are op-eds and the text in the article is not attributed to the author? EvergreenFir (talk) 20:52, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

The article is just shy of 400,000 bytes. If you want anyone to pay any attention to this, you will need to point to specifics. O3000 (talk) 20:54, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

There's a reason that the Veracity of statements by Donald Trump has it's own article -- it's a well-documented phenomena. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:13, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

and also that limits and pushback was happening ... but away from the more viewed areas of scrutiny, something that looks a lot like a POVFORK verging on attack page with DUE issues could get made. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:47, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Criticisms in a biography of a living person need to be sourced to a reliable secondary source per WP:BLPSTYLE. Only one secondary source is given in the section on false statements, the Journal of the American Ethnology Society. All of the other sources are news articles and columns, which are primary sources by Wikipedia policy per WP:PRIMARYNEWS. Given that an accusation of making false statements is a criticism, only statements that can be sourced to the Journal of the American Ethnology Society or other reliable secondary source should be included in this article.PluniaZ (talk) 02:01, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Rossano Rubicondi

WP:NOTAFORUM. I fail to see how this relates to improvement of this article. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:05, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Do you mind if I start a discussion on Dr. Rossano Rubicondi? I wouldn't say that he should be considered as a "Toy Boy" for Ivana Trump. BUTT, nevertheless, I still can't comprehend how it happened that Donald "Gianduiotto" Trump'eteer' left this marvellous, well educated, excellent and awesome Lady for Drunkelania. A picture explains all:

https://www.rsi.ch/news/vita-quotidiana/stragente/Una-nota-spese-che-indigna-11056878.html

You all would agree that she, "Mellania", looks like she's always ready to instruct her offspring in Science and Religion disciplines.

Addition: my excuses go to the First Lady, Melania, that has some motivation against his "husband". It looks to me that he manifested a little bit offside, not centered, behavior, I would say "beschlagnahmen". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fportera (talk • contribs) 09:45, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Overall, they are a gorgeous couple (Donald and Melania) and I wish their existence will continue forever and ever in happiness, prosperity and that will follow the road that God traced for them. Humbly. filippo portera — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fportera (talk • contribs) 09:31, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

The Trump hearing

This article needs better coverage of what transpired during the Trump hearing in the House Oversight Committee where his former personal lawyer Michael Cohen testified on matters related to Donald Trump, the Trump campaign and the Trump Organization. The hearing is only mentioned briefly in a section on the Stormy Daniels hush payments. However Cohen's testimony covered far more than just the Stormy Daniels hush payments, so it would be more appropriate to cover the hearing in a different section than "Hush payments". Cohen's testimony covered Trump's ties to Russia, his business dealings, and the overall criminal nature (according to the testimony) of Trump, his company and his associates, and Cohen described Trump as a "racist" and "a con man," a stunning testimonial from a President's own personal lawyer. This article in The Guardian[1] discusses some of the highlights of the hearing. Perhaps we need a separate (sub) section on the hearing? --Tataral (talk) 14:57, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I completely disagree. The material is relevant to Michael Cohen (lawyer), but right now it is unclear what impact the Cohen hearing will have on Trump's biography, if anything. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

You need reliable secondary sources to show how important this is. The conversation with Stone is not significant considering that Assange had already publicly stated that he was about to publish emails relating to Clinton.[2] TFD (talk) 01:35, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Clintons not president.2600:1702:2340:9470:894B:4A6:C8D8:2A66 (talk) 07:09, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Just wait a bit, so far it’s not DUE. There’s only so much coverage that happens in a day to establish prominence, and this one is splitting tv time with the Vietnam trip. Give it another day or three and see what happens out of the testimony. Seems more of a 2-day wonder to me that won’t have much impact or enduring notice but just wait a bit and time will tell. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:49, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Apparently Cohen said nothing new of substance. Bygones. — JFG ^talk 13:38, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Actually, much of what Cohen said was bombshell testimony, especially since it is likely much of it can easily be corroborated. But none of that will be obvious for a while, which is why it doesn't belong here yet. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:47, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Hush payments

Recently this text was added to the Hush payments section. Does it belong in that section or should it be in presidential campaign section under General election campaign? Seems out of place where it is not since it was not actually a hush payment. @MrX: & @Mandruss: as people that have edited that part. PackMecEng (talk) 18:43, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I just do cites. ;) ―Mandruss ☎ 18:48, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I am not saying there is anything wrong with the text or the like. I just looked for who knew about the section in general. I am just curious of others thoughts about where it should go. PackMecEng (talk) 18:53, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I took a guess on where it should go. There may very well be a better section to include it in. - Mr X 🖋 19:06, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

It may fit better under § Special counsel, either at the end of the third paragraph or at the end of the section. - Mr X 🖋 19:12, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Maybe at the bottom of Investigations - Associates (up one section). The last line there is talking about Stone so it kind of follows that thread. Seems a bit OFFTOPIC though — a secondhand allegation he knew something about Stone seems just not that a BLPish describing Trump major actions and major events in Trump’s life. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:39, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I am astonished that JFG removed this material. This was widely covered in the news, broadcast live, and is another in a long string of historically significant and unprecedented events. It's inconceivable that we would consider omitting credible testimony from a Trump confidant about Trump's direct knowledge and tacit approval of a potentially criminal act. It should be promptly restored.- Mr X 🖋 14:23, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, MrX, but I support the removal of this content on the basis that it has nothing to do with the "hush payments" section in which it was added; however, I would also support its restoration in a "WikiLeaks" section that also featured Trump's campaign rally plea to the Russians to hack Clinton's emails, and other comments he made about his fondness for WikiLeaks ("we love WikiLeaks" et al). -- Scjessey (talk) 17:05, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

@Scjessey: I'm not sure we should have an entire Wikileaks section, but if you would like to draft something that may convince me otherwise.- Mr X 🖋 11:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@MrX: I'd love to, but my incredible laziness is an impediment. Actually, it would be as simple as your paragraph, preceded by another that mentions Trump's call for Russia to hack Clinton's emails, his amazing exchange with Katy Tur, then his post-hack comments on how much he loved WikiLeaks. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:39, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

OK, I guess we'll see if someone else comes up with something. Or maybe I'll do it later after my own laziness spell passes.- Mr X 🖋 19:17, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

User:MrX Just FWIW... I’m inclined to view “historically significant” as just empty hyperbole, (although the description is as just ‘story du jour’,) dittos “Inconceivable” “Unprecedented” and “Potentially criminal” smacks of SPECULATION and just makes no sense. I suggest applying WEIGHT instead of asserting by rhetoric, having restraint , and simply accept that time alone will tell. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:18, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your opinion about my use of adjectives. I'm glad that you agree that WP:DUEWEIGHT applies. This material certainly meets that bar.- Mr X 🖋 11:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikilink to President article or Presidency article

The lede sentence, Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current president of the United States, currently wikilinks to President of the United States rather than Presidency of Donald Trump. I suggest the latter is preferable, as everyone knows what the POTUS is, and it's more useful to link to his presidency article, which contains a great deal of info that is not in his BLP but which readers may never find because they google "Trump," land on his BLP, and are never aware of his presidency article. What do you think? soibangla (talk) 19:14, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

MOS:EGG. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:17, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

There are plenty of links to the presidency article, that readers can easily follow, including right in the infobox. A link to Trump's current job is standard practice, and just as useful to readers as a link to Trump's specific presidency. Keep as is. — JFG ^talk 15:27, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

MOS:EGG. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:38, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

)

Is it time for a “Donald Trump-inspired mass violence” spinout article?

Troll attack — JFG ^talk 20:09, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

We have loads of material for such an article after Christchurch, Parkland, Charlottesville, Pittsburgh, Quebec City, Charleston, Las Vegas, etc... It is time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B407:26A4:D1AC:59F2:B74:318A (talk) 06:55, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

This is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Go write it. — JFG ^talk 09:57, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd recommend very high-quality sources though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:13, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Be careful. There are good sources and indications that Christchruch was inspired by him, but I think the case that some of those others were inspired by him is a lot harder to make, especially given that there was a epidemic of mass violence before he came along as a major political figure. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 13:31, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

how would this not violate NPOV SCAH (talk) 14:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

What “good sources” are you referring to? All I see is primary research via the lunatic killer’s manifesto. Tycoon24 (talk) 14:32, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Using primary research (ie. Words only from the mass murderer) who makes wild claims that his actions and decisions to murder people were inspired by living people, you have to be very careful not to violate WP:BLP as any claims suggesting a living person inspired attacks could be considered libel. So you’ll need more than a “manifesto” (primary research) to allege Donald Trump inspired attacks. In fact, the article on the Christchurch shooting is currently violating Wikipedia rules by using the manifesto to claim public figures inspired the attack. Tycoon24 (talk) 14:29, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

The concept of "inspiration" is also tricky to deal with because it involves, in large part, mind-reading on the part of sources, which calls into question their reliability. For example, I'm not sure if the Las Vegas shooter ever gave any indication of why he did what he did. Is there such thing as a "reliable source", then, for his motive? Even if the publication has a sterling reputation, it seems dubious to me that such an article would be reliable. Cosmic Sans (talk) 15:20, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Can you show that there are any serious studies about "Donald Trump-inspired mass violence?" If there are, the topic has notability. However, a list of cases of mass violence by Trump supporters would lack notability and be implicit synthesis. One of the issues that must be addressed is the extent to which Trump has lead to an increase in right-wing terrorism, which must be sourced to reliable sources. Otherwise, the article would incorrectly imply that it only came into being with Trump. Another issue is that sources said that a lot of far right violence before Trump was a reaction to Obama's election. So that's an anomaly, since the claim is that the far right is motivated both by having a leader they support and one they oppose as president. TFD (talk) 15:42, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

For starters, you can't "spin out" something from an article that isn't there in the article. Not only is a spinout article not needed; we don't (and shouldn't) say anything along those lines even here in the main article. Speculation, unreliable sources, primary sources; nothing encyclopedic here. People can make connections (i.e. synthesis) and accusations all they want; actual evidence of inspiration is lacking. Criminals may claim "inspiration" by some prominent figure to justify their criminal acts, but the acts spring from their own twisted psyches rather than from something somebody said. Actually blaming Trump for these horrific incidents may be no more justified than blaming Jodie Foster for the actions of John Hinckley. Bottom line: no. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:15, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

The IPs are block-evading sock of WP:Long-term abuse/Kingshowman. Feeding is not recommended! Favonian (talk) 17:11, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Should the article include material about Michael Cohen's testimony that Trump knew about Roger Stone's communications with WikiLeaks?

Clear consensus to omit.

Discussion was open for 8 days and has received enough participation for a relatively minor question. As MelanieN pointed out, RfC was premature without prior failure to reach consensus, and it's apparent that a consensus would have been easily reached. The count was 2–11—counting soibangla's "this▲" as a "No per R2 (Ahrtoodeetoo)."—and the two Yeses were short on argument. The larger part of the opposition was NOTNEWS/recentism/premature.

Pincrete's Comment could be taken as a Yes with modification, but there was no traction for the modification. Or, it could be taken as a Yes with a weak suggestion for modification, but that Yes would not change the outcome. In any case it lacked an argument.

About six editors said this could be revisited if warranted by future developments or with the benefit of historical perspective. Arguably, that goes without saying per the first sentence at WP:CCC. Also arguably, it may be significant considering the second sentence at WP:CCC. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:26, 18 March 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 article include material about Michael Cohen's testimony that Trump knew about Roger Stone's communications with WikiLeaks, similar to the following:?

In February 2019, Trump's former private attorney Michael Cohen testified before the House Oversight Committee, implicating Trump for allegedly knowing that Roger Stone was communicating with WikiLeaks about releasing emails stolen from the DNC in 2016.^[1]^[2]

Sources

^ Zapotosky, Matt; Demirjian, Karoun; Helderman, Rosalind S. (February 27, 2019). "Michael Cohen's testimony: Trump's former personal lawyer alleges the president knew in advance of WikiLeaks plan". The Washington Post. Retrieved February 27, 2019.
^ Daub, Travis (February 27, 2019). "Read Michael Cohen's full prepared testimony on Trump's Russia plans, WikiLeaks email dump". PBS. Retrieved February 27, 2019.

- Mr X 🖋 16:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Comment Phrasing seems 'clunky'. I suggest "implicating Trump for allegedly knowing that Roger Stone was communicating with .." become "alleging that Trump knew that Roger Stone was communicating with .."Pincrete (talk) 18:25, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
No That Trump and Stone were aware of Wikileaks trove of emails is not a surprise, considering they announced that they had the emails and were going to release them months prior. ResultingConstant (talk) 18:28, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
No. Various problems, both small and large. I agree with Pincrete that the wording could use improvement. So could the sourcing; not that the content is unverifiable, but there are sources out there that discuss this piece of Cohen's testimony in more detail, and those sources are preferable. On top of those tweaking issues, the request doesn't say where this sentence would be added. Context is critical. I see no obvious place in the current article structure where this sentence would fit, and neither the edit history nor the talk page discussion are providing any clues. Finally for the biggest issue: I think we should wait to add this level of detail until the Mueller Report is released. There's a very good chance that Cohen's testimony on this subject won't survive in this article after the report is issued and made public. I suppose you could call it recentism. R2 (bleep) 15:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

this▲ soibangla (talk) 23:30, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

No When providing negative material, it is always necessary to provide context. Both Cohen and Stone are highly questionable witnesses and anyway the information Stone provided was already public knowledge. TFD (talk) 17:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes (Summoned by bot) I don't see the problem with some form of this text in the article, somewhere. Coretheapple (talk) 18:04, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes. This material should be mentioned somewhere in the body of the article (the exact wording could be improved). I'm happy with the current version of the lead that summarises Cohen's testimony and its impact. --Tataral (talk) 01:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
No: Mainly per WP:NOTNEWS. There's no rush to add what seems to be only one small and minor part of a major/notable and long-lasting investigation. I say we should wait a bit before adding what seems to be to be a minor detail (considering the entire scope Trump-Russia-Mueller controversy). --1990'sguy (talk) 19:38, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Not unless/until it becomes more important Recentism is a concern here. If it pans out into something larger, then it would be fine for inclusion. Cosmic Sans (talk) 22:00, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
No Cohen talked for seven hours and accused Trump of dozens of things. There is no reason for singling out this one; it did not get more coverage than the others, and coverage is what determines our placement. (IMO it would have been better to launch this as a simple discussion rather than an RfC, which is supposed to be used only if consensus cannot be reached on the talk page. See WP:RFCBEFORE.) -- MelanieN (talk) 19:50, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
No for now per WP:NOTNEWS, though it may be worth revisiting in a year or two when its significance can be better historically assessed. Chetsford (talk) 06:03, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
No per MelanieN, plus there was ultimately nothing new of substance in this round of testimony. — JFG ^talk 06:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
No - Premature at best. Things will probably develop later on, and then we can look back at the material related to this to incorporate what is needed. Right now, we have testimony without consequences. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:06, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
No (Summoned by bot) My feeling is it could be included in the 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak article, or even in Michael Cohen's article, but it would be giving it too much weight to include it here. CThomas³ (talk) 22:27, 15 March 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.

Wrestlemania 23

@MrX: Ref. your edit That particular incident was the one someone doctored by superimposing the CNN logo over McMahon's head as Trump was fake-pounding him. Trump tweeting the doctored version was big news, so it may deserve mention in some form, without the minutiae of the fake competition. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:33, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

This is what I removed:

He has been an active participant in several WWE shows, most notably at WrestleMania 23 in the corner of Bobby Lashley who competed against Umaga with WWE Chairman Vince McMahon in his corner, in the "Battle of the Billionaires" Hair vs. Hair match, with either Trump or McMahon having their head shaved if their competitor lost. During the match Trump tackled Vince and Lashley defeated Umaga, and along with special guest referee Stone Cold Steve Austin, he and Trump both proceeded to shave McMahon bald.

It seems very trivial to me, at least without the additional context that you mentioned. I don't feel that strongly about it though.- Mr X 🖋 14:39, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd remove everything after Wrestlemania 23 and add the stuff about the tweeted doctored video. The president of the country thinking it's funny to tweet a video of himself appearing to beat up a member of the news media is somewhat unusual. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:56, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Knock yourself out. I think it's pretty trivial in comparison to other things have not been adequately covered in the article.- Mr X 🖋 23:25, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Well-sourced wrestling-stuff may have a place at Donald Trump in popular culture. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:23, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Can we shorten it to just He was an active participant in several WWE shows, including WrestleMania 23. Or just remove it entirely - his cameo in Home Alone 2: Lost in New York isn't in the article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:34, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I think power~enwiki's version is a sensible summary to use. — JFG ^talk 06:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Short description

The current short description of Donald Trump is 45th President of the United States. I suggest that this be changed to 45th and current President of the United States to match the first sentence of the article. However, given the history of the first paragraph of the article (#Current consensus #17), I thought it prudent to discuss first.

Background:

20:20, 13 September 2017 (on wikidata): English description changed from 45th President of the United States of America, American businessman and television personality to 45th President of the United States of America ([3])
09:12, 6 February 2018 (on wikidata): English description changed from 45th President of the United States of America to 45th President of the United States by @Galobtter ([4])
10:48, 12 April 2018 (on enwiki): Short description imported from Wikidata as 45th President of the United States by @Galobtter ([5])

The description hasn't changed since April, suggestion that people are okay with it. Are others okay with my suggested change? Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 04:34, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Actually it's currently 45th president of the United States. I'm fine with adding "and current". ―Mandruss ☎ 04:53, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Agree to add "and current"; that matches consensus on the article's first sentence, and it's more informative to readers who may have lived in a news isolation bubble since 2016. — JFG ^talk 06:30, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

The change should be performed on Wikidata as well; I can do this if nobody beats me to it. — JFG ^talk 06:31, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

User:DannyS712 - Seems OK, either way. There doesn't seem to be short description precedents in the past presidents back history, though I note that the first lines vary so a difference from first line seems allowable too.

2014 Barack Hussein Obama II (/bəˈrɑːk huːˈseɪn oʊˈbɑːmə/ ; born August 4, 1961) is the 44th and current President of the United States, and the first African American to hold the office.
2006: George Walker Bush (born July 6 1946) is the 43rd and current President of the United States, inaugurated on January 20, 2001 and re-elected in the 2004 U.S. presidential election. He was the 46th Governor of Texas from 1995 to 2000.
2002 William Jefferson Clinton (born August 19, 1946) was the 42nd President of the United States of America, a Democrat who served from 1993 - 2001.

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Done, here and at Wikidata. — JFG ^talk 06:43, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

One-word twitter-twatter "VETO" and precendent, "AIPAC"

If the {{current event}} newsmedia coverage of one-word tweets in the USA by politicians is to be balanced and not biased, the article could avoid the clutter of false-attributions and similar instances of hidden agenda politricking common in the press (for example a DEM Congressperson tweeting "AIPAC"^[1]) by simply referring to Trump`s tweet of "VETO" verbatim.

In the case of the tweet of the DEM Congressperson, the single-word tweet, "AIPAC", was an indication that could be self-explanatory (allowing the reader to read-up on the matter if they had any questions).
In the case of the POTUS tweet, the single-word tweet, "VETO", was an indication that could be self-explanatory.

As the article is already rather lengthy, the massmedia back-and-fro about the single-word tweet, and in the context of the POTUS having already explicitly mentioned it while delivering his Declaration of Emergency on the White House Lawn on the 15th of February 2019, the wikipedia article should be concise.126.163.81.182 (talk) 02:07, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

References

^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ilhan_Omar&diff=887800859&oldid=883692557

What is it exactly you suggest to edit? — JFG ^talk 06:44, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm glad I'm not the only one who didn't really understand this. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:34, 17 March 2019 (UTC

Talk:Donald Trump/Current consensus

The edit notice at Talk:Donald Trump/Current consensus, says that Editors may only edit this page if there is consensus to do so, established by discussion. Please note, any disruption caused to this list will result in an immediate block., so to err on the safe side I will discuss it here. I would like to set the items that have been struck through a superseded to be <noinclude>ed. I don't think they need to be shown here, and to me its just distracting to try and follow what was superseded by what. The current consensus section should only show the current consensus, not the entire history of consensuses. At the same time, I want to make a minor adjustment to the formatting for superseded consensuses - currently, some of the # XYZ have the number struck through, and some don't - this should be standardized, and other minor formatting tweaks. I have made my changes at User talk:DannyS712/sandbox - see the differences here. Thoughts? --DannyS712 (talk) 20:22, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing first.
Striking through the whole thing including the number is fine with me.
There is no need or requirement to "follow what was superseded by what"—editors generally know that stricken text may be safely ignored. The benefit of saving people the trouble of ignoring it would be about equal to the cost of making new arrivals wonder why there are gaps in the numbers. Leaving the superseded items may also help new arrivals understand how the consensus system works, and it improves transparency. I oppose <noinclude>ing them.
What other minor formatting tweaks are you proposing? ―Mandruss ☎ 23:18, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

It's true that the list is getting long, and the stricken items are distracting, while being necessary for transparency. @DannyS712 and Mandruss: Please take a look at my alternate version in Danny's sandbox, using {{hide}} templates. — JFG ^talk 15:21, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

@JFG: I'm happy with the alternative you drafted. @Mandruss? --DannyS712 (talk) 16:10, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Ok, but I would like to hear more opinions. The proposal complicates the coding considerably and I have reservations about cost-benefit. We would end up with a situation in which only a few editors are able to correctly convert a normal entry to collapsed—and much of the cleaner-look benefit would be lost if this is not done with consistency. That's not a particularly egalitarian approach. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Not to mention that new editors to the page in particular are far less likely to look at whats hidden before rehashing previous discussions, so we could end up with a spike in already-been-discussed material here as people propose before realizing that its already been discussed before. That being said, I can't prove that until we try this, so its an observation, not a concern, and therefore certainly not a reason to oppose the proposal (at least not officially at this point in time). TomStar81 (Talk) 19:08, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Converting a visible entry to a hidden entry is simply a matter of copying the appropriate code from a previous entry; that should be no bigger deal for anyone than performing the strikethrough + small-type comment we already use. @TomStar81: Actually it's good if new editors do not look at the hidden entries, because they represent consensus discussions that have been superseded by newer ones, or have become obsolete. They are only preserved for documenting the history of community decisions. — JFG ^talk 06:24, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

What's "simply a matter" for you and me is not so for everybody, or even most. That's why I hope for more opinions. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:53, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

@Mandruss: it doesn't need to be a simple matter for everyone or most, because the /current consensus page isn't edited much, and consensus items being superseded is even rarer. --DannyS712 (talk) 01:17, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712: It has been 14 days since JFG's proposal and, as far as we know, nobody else cares one way or the other. Go ahead. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:23, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

@Mandruss: I'll give it a bit more time, but without any other objections I'll make the changes --DannyS712 (talk) 01:30, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Done — JFG ^talk 01:33, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Citations in lede

Is there a reason the lede of this article has no citations? Much of the content in the lede would benefit from citations, and it's strange that there are no references. SiliconRed (talk) 22:08, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Long-standing consensus at this article has it that the cost of citations in the lead (visual clutter) would exceed their benefit. Editors make an effort to ensure that the lead summarizes cited content in the body. More generally, I would argue that "unusual" does not equate to "strange" and is anything but a Bad Thing; rather, emphasis on consistency tends to ensure consistently mediocre content. It would be different if there were a community consensus that leads should have cites, but there is not one. The community has left this to our discretion, and we have exercised it. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:16, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

This makes a lot of sense, thank you for your thorough explanation and qualification. Would it be worth considering including citations for the lede elsewhere in the article as opposed to in the lede to solve the problem of visual clutter while also making each item in the lede verifiable? Even if there's no community consensus about ledes having cites, there is certainly consensus about writing on Wikipedia having cites. Still, I don't want to reopen a closed discussion--I'll be reviewing old discussions to see where this has come up before (I did not find any in a brief initial search). If there are threads you know of I would appreciate being pointed in the right direction. SiliconRed (talk) 00:54, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't recall a full-blown discussion all in one place—if there had been one, there would probably be an entry in our #Current consensus list. The subject has come up briefly several times in several years, always affirming the principle, and there's of course quite a bit of de facto local consensus in the fact that this has been consistently maintained for several years. If you wanted this to be such a "full-blown discussion all in one place", that wouldn't seem improper to me. I would oppose a change.
How would one go about "including citations for the lede elsewhere in the article"? ―Mandruss ☎ 01:20, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Not sure how including citations elsewhere might work; I have never seen such a practice before, but I am open to suggestions & conversation about potential ideas and I'll certainly be thinking on it myself. Although I certainly respect the historical de facto consensus, I'm pushing the point as there are several parts of the lede which, despite an argument for them being common knowledge (which is very plausibly an argument for their inclusion sans-citation), jumped out at me as seeming to quote outside sources without actually referencing them. Examples include the line "Many of his comments and actions have been perceived as racially charged or racist" and the line "Commentators described his political positions as populist, protectionist, and nationalist," which raise potential concern for WP:WEASEL (they lack a "by whom?" and instead refer generally to comments). SiliconRed (talk) 01:30, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

At least some of those concerns—if valid—are properly addressed by changes to the prose, not by the addition of citations. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:34, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm generally opposed to having citations in the lede of any article, but most especially the fulsome biographies you often get with politicians. Citations in the lede of a US president are extremely rare. The most recent president with citations (and only a couple) is Jimmy Carter, and before that JFK, so it's been a long standing convention to avoid them. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:19, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Scjessey—you're absolutely right. Looking back through other articles on politicians there is certainly a standing convention to avoid citations. Thanks for the context here. SiliconRed (talk) 00:31, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Siliconred - where the lead is summarizing the body per WP:LEAD, cites should be in the body and are not repeated in lead. In some places the lead content is from TALK per the section Highlighted open discussions, and is not a summary of the content or have cites. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:11, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

This style article is where I should have looked before opening up this thread. Answers my initial concerns with the lack of citations in the lead and a thorough qualification of when they may or may not be necessary. Also, reminds me that the section before the table of contents is the "lead," not the "lede"; as per the style guide the first section of the article "is not a news-style lead or "lede" paragraph." Otherwise thanks all for the discussion and for clearing up my concerns! SiliconRed (talk) 00:31, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Attorney general: The Mueller report clears Trump campaign of collusion with Russia

Can we add this great fact on this article? ^[1] Goodtiming8871 (talk) 10:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

References

^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMXXOtCo8FQ

No. Will only have Bill Barr's opinion on what the report says, not the report itself. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:12, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't operate on primary sources though. We're always taking some reliable source's opinion about an event. This is really no different. Cosmic Sans (talk) 12:10, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Of course we can, but it needs to be sourced to reliable secondary sources, i.e., news reports. TFD (talk) 12:06, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes you can. That is the DOJ's conclusion on the matter. Aviartm (talk) 12:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Just checked and I thought so, my edit yesterday already includes this fact. Go here. Go to 'Robert Mueller' and read the most recent, last paragraph. Aviartm (talk) 12:21, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Troubling levels of liberal bias in this article.

This page is for improving the article, not for arguing politics. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The difference between this article and the Hillary Clinton article is insane. Wikipedia cannot be THIS biased. Seriously, I made an account just to say that this is out of control. Editors, take a step back from whatever REALLY liberal viewpoint you have and just read the starting paragraphs on this Trump page and almost any page on any democrat. This has gone too far. I suggest letting other people save this page and allowing right leaning people to check your work before posting to remove your biases. Otherwise Wikipedia will be so far to the left that it will be useless for the common reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scotthart1 (talk • contribs) 01:18, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Scotthart1, please point out SPECIFIC things that you think are biased and we can address them. That is what would be most helpful. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I'll chime in here. This following sentence is in the lead: "Many of his comments and actions have been perceived as racially charged or racist." That type of defamatory sentence doesn't belong in the lead section. It's a vague statement about the subjective perceptions of unnamed people without any sort of citation, context, or rebuttal. It's basically character assassination, as these days calling someone racist is worse than calling someone a murderer. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:12, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Rreagan007, when he said, about Mexican immigrants, "They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists"--do you think those words were "perceived" as "racially charged", or were they just plain racist? Drmies (talk) 03:16, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Drmies Since "Mexican" isn't a race, that statement is neither of those things. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:55, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

"Perceived" is subjective. And the answer is yes they were according to the sources. I find it odd when people call objective facts liberal bias. I don't believe any other president has behaved how this one has, which is probably why his article looks different. His ability to blatantly lie and insult as political strategy is unmatched. Teammm ^talk
_email 04:21, 26 March 2019 (UTC) Teammm ^talk
_email 04:19, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

The bias is in what information you choose to include (and where and how you include it) and what information you exclude. Do you perceive the following statement to be racist: "I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races … I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races from living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be a position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race." And, if so, should we say in the lead of the Abraham Lincoln article that he made racist statements? Rreagan007 (talk) 07:05, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I would support calling Lincoln a racist.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:07, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

In the article lead section? Rreagan007 (talk) 07:17, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I would support putting it in the Pledge of Allegiance.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:36, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I would support leaving Abraham Lincoln out of discussions about Wikipedia articles about Donald Trump. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:21, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Teammm, I've often heard that the truth has a liberal bias. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:29, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I think liberal bias can be seen in the responses to the Mueller report, which attempt to sugar-coat this bitter pill for Democrats. Of course, this doesn't really help the Democrats' cause; it just means they're in denial. But it's still bias.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:07, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Jack Upland, you mean the responses to the Barr letter? Because we don't know what the Mueller Report says yet. I'm more concerned by the right wing response that is essentially echoing what Trump is tweeting, which is, unsurprisingly, not factual. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:14, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

That's exactly the kind of denialism that I'm talking about.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:21, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Jack Upland, no, there's no denial on my part. Mueller submitted a report based on his two-year investigation which found evidence of Russian interference and obstruction of justice, without coming to conclusions on whether or not charges should be pressed, leaving that to Barr (and Rosenstein). Barr (and Rosenstein) chose not to press charges. Now, it's up to the House and attorneys in DC, SDNY, and the NY AG office to see what happens next. What part of that is inaccurate? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:38, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I've gotten to the point where my eyes tend to glaze over when I see comments like The difference between this article and the Hillary Clinton article is insane. For about the hundredth time, Donald Trump is not Hillary Clinton, the body of reliable sources does not say similar things about them in similar quantities, and it truly would show bias—and violate Wikipedia policy—if Wikipedia did. This has been affirmed at this article and many others time and time again. Neutrality looks like bias to those who don't recognize their own bias—and/or don't understand Wikipedia content policy. It's notable that this article does not use any form of the word "lie" in wiki voice, despite the fact that many, many of the most respected relliable sources do just that when talking about Trump, and often. So which direction is this bias? ―Mandruss ☎ 07:37, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

And bias doesn't look like bias for those who don't recognise their own bias. I remember having arguments with editors who said that Trump wouldn't last six months. Now they're certainly that he'll be impeached or lose the next election. And they edit accordingly. Trump is a historical figure. Nero, Hitler, and Lincoln are not wiped from time because we say harsh things about them. If you want to defeat Trump you should register to vote, or speak to the Russians. An encyclopedia is not an appropriate tool for political protest.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

That goes both ways, and it has no connection to policy. If you want to challenge the enormous standing consensus about Trump-related RS, better get busy developing that case. I'm not going to have much more to say in this discussion until you return with your case, as it would be pointless and probably WP:FORUM. If you believe that said consensus is only the result of Trump-haters having the numerical majority, I would submit that complaining about that here isn't going to change anything. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:58, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

If we want this article to meet the FA level of quality achieved at the Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama articles then of course we make comparisons between how each is written. Why wouldn't we? Those articles are featured leveled articles and this one is not.--MONGO (talk) 14:31, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not really complaining: just pointing out facts. Just because you're enormous standing doesn't overshadow the facts. I'm not interested in concocting some convoluted cockamamie claptrap certified by Wikipedia's plastic legion of protocol drones. Liberal bias doesn't achieve anything here. Reliable sources aren't really reliable if they said Trump wouldn't be the candidate, wouldn't win, and wouldn't survive his first term, and wouldn't survive his second. This is fantasy, and I didn't think Wikipedia was a pornography site.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:33, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

There's too much conservative bias in this discussion, and in the article. People who have conservative bias can't see it because they're conservatively biased. I say this because an encyclopedia is not an appropriate tool for political protest. I'm just pointing out facts.- Mr X 🖋 11:41, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Muboshgu gave the correct response to the OP immediately: please point out SPECIFIC things that you think are biased and we can address them. In all the ensuing discussion since, only one sentence has been pointed out, and it is very well documented. Indeed, there’s an entire article on the subject. O3000 (talk) 12:03, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm generally of the belief that the sentence should stay. As noted, there's ample sourcing for the statement. The only changes I'd consider would be possibly adding "nativism" in addition to racism, and qualifying the statement that it refers to 21st century standards of racism. p b p 14:30, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Race has been a broad term for quite a while. The 1933 version of the OED includes as a definition: “A tribe, nation, or people regarded as of common stock.” Also, “A set of tribes, or peoples forming a distinct ethnic stock." The earliest example is in the 17th Century referring to the British race. O3000 (talk) 14:51, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

You sort of missed my point. Yes, race has been a broad term for awhile, but there is much more public pressure against being racist now than there was in, say, 1858 or 1933. I was in part replying to the "Lincoln was racist" claim above. p b p 15:55, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM folks. And the race thing has been discussed ad nauseum already.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:37, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

If there is a better place to bring these questions up than this article make it know where would that be. I do not intend to clutter this page. Nor do I intend to use the wrong place for this conversation. The point of my post is that I am a layman and when I found this site I was struck by the sheer levels of bias within it. I made an account last night to bring this to the attention of the editors. People reading this site and looking to this site for information should not be expected to have protect themselves against the level of bias. Wikipedia is relied upon by the average person to provide information about our world within it and the seems to be an entrenched liberal group within the editors that want to render this site useless for political information. If you require specific examples here, I can show some.Scotthart1 (talk) 17:13, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Scotthart1, no, this is the right place to discuss the Donald Trump article. The issue is that what you might perceive to be bias, we perceive as sourced and factual. We have come to WP:CONSENSUS on many of the things that are in this page. #Highlighted open discussions lists over 30 such consensuses (consensii?). That doesn't mean it's perfect, hardly. There are surely things that can be improved. But, we need SPECIFIC examples of areas of improvement. Just saying the whole page is biased doesn't really help. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:31, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I would request that this section be moved then to a place with more room. I have examples, but they would take up the entire page. However; for the sake of time I will state that the intro is the wrong place to put so many topics. Additionally, there is no nuance in the topics presented. Only one side seems to be represented. This is not up to wikipedia's standards.Scotthart1 (talk) 17:54, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Thus far, you have added 2,046 characters to this page without providing any example of bias. This is not an effective method of gaining consensus. O3000 (talk) 18:04, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Scotthart1 If you think your examples will take up too much space (which I don't mind nor will others I think), use your User Page if you want. There, you can add as much detail as you wish to show us. Aviartm (talk) 18:57, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Let's keep discussion in one place. Besides, that could be removed as a political screed if left up too long. O3000 (talk) 19:05, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Clinton isn`t president..has nothing to do with this article.2600:1702:2340:9470:F587:4992:BFF5:185C (talk) 18:53, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Well Donald Trump ran against Hillary Clinton in 2016, so to not mention Hillary at all in this article would be a major omission. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:13, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Scotthart1, the intro is meant to summarize the key points of the article, and that's for every article. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section for more on that. These article talk pages have infinite space. Maybe you could create a subsection in this section for the examples you have. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:12, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I'll start off with single examples to allow for more discussion. " His campaign received extensive free media coverage." This implies that the media coverage was helpful and positive. 90% was anti-Trump. This is misdirection at best if not lying by omission.Scotthart1 (talk) 19:50, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Scotthart1, okay, that seems like a good place to start. He did receive A LOT of free media coverage, as CNN and other cable news networks would often break away from whatever they were doing to air Trump's campaign rallies. There are sources that estimate the value of this coverage: [6][7][8]. You are right that not all of the coverage was positive, a lot was negative. Where did you get the 90% figure, though? Even if it was that negative, there is the old adage: "there is no such thing as bad publicity". Trump has made a living off of publicity, positive or negative. If anything, it seems that Trump has thrived on making an enemy of the press. That, I think, is the point in that statement. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:59, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

yes he received free media coverage because they thought he was the easiest candidate for hillary to beat ^[1] SCAH (talk) 20:18, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

References

^ https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/09/15/yes_hillary_the_media_did_help_trump_win_so_did_you_135011.html

SCAH, no, he received the free media coverage because it was sensational. People who sings the media is biased either to the left or to the right are incorrect. The media is biased towards sensationalism and corporate profits. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:41, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

For the first https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/mar/6/trump-coverage-still-90-negative-says-new-study/. Second, negative coverage is not helpful to a candidate and old adages do not excuse the lack of explanation with the article. There is a difference in good and bad coverage and the lack of positive coverage is largely to blame for the continued belief of lies about Trump amounst people. Case in point the bizarre belief that the Muller probe was in any was justified or had anything to find. The lack of coverage of the particulars allowed for a story to grow in spite of the truth. For example: In the tower meeting between Trump's associates and son and a Russian lawyer the media never mentioned broadly that the lawyer met with and was working with Fusion GPS. https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/fusion-gps-glenn-simpson-dined-russian-lawyer-after-her-meeting-trump-tower ||| https://dailycaller.com/2019/01/08/veselnitskaya-trump-tower-fusion/ Scotthart1 (talk) 20:13, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

The reaason Trump's possibly racist comments are significant compared with Lincoln for example is that they have received extensive coverage in proportion to overall coverage of him. It is important because it is part of the strategy he used to build a loyal core following. It is impossible to understand Trump's political success without mentioning his appeal to racism. TFD (talk) 20:20, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Scotthart1, I would have no rpoblem adding something about the level of negative coverage Trump has received. However, that Washington Times piece with the 90% figure is referencing the Media Research Center, which is partisan. We should find a nonpartisan source of that information. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:52, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

TFD you are arguing in bad faith.(I might disagree with him but I will admit that he does not mean me harm with this I take the statement back) Did Obama appeal to black supremacists to win? Did Clinton appeal to misandrists for votes? Just because someone advocates for people does mean they hate anyone. Donald Trump can point out that rural poor white Americans have gotten the short end of the stick while and should be able to voice this without claims that he is racist for saying that. Additionally, the entire argument that he said racist things or is racist is the result of people having a negative opinion of him based on negative media coverage. Which was unprecedented and ridiculously unwarranted.Scotthart1 (talk) 20:28, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Please assume good faith WP:AGF. Trump argued against various peoples. That’s not the same as advocating for. And no, the entire argument that he has said racist things and taken racist actions is because he has said things considered racist and taken actions considered racist, going back decades. O3000 (talk) 20:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it would be possible for any politician to directly address the problems and complaints of white Americans without being called a racist. Trump in his speeches is always talking about the black unemployment rate, the hispanic unemployment rate, and the female unemployment rate. Never once has he ever referenced the white unemployment rate (or the male unemployment rate for that matter). I have never once heard Trump in his speeches explicitly reference white Americans. If he did, that would instantly be called racist. But politicians routinely talk about the challenges facing black Americans or hispanic Americans or native Americans. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:46, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Racist is a term that has a legal definition and Trump has not reached that definition. If you disagree give an example of a racist thing Trump has said not what people have stated that he said. Scotthart1 (talk) 20:50, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Scotthart1, nobody thinks Trump is racist because "people do not like him" People think he's racist because of his actions, such as his housing discrimination against black people in the 1970s and his op ed against the Central Park Five in the Central Park jogger case in 1989, not to mention all the things he's said about Mexicans being rapists and drug dealers, and African nations being "shitholes". – Muboshgu (talk) 20:54, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

And racism is not a legal term. And Trump's words are recorded. See: Racial views of Donald Trump. O3000 (talk) 20:59, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Calling illegals for what they are is not racist. And in the speech, right after that famous line..."But I speak to border guards and they tell us what we’re getting. And it only makes common sense. It only makes common sense. They’re sending us not the right people." Facts cannot be racist. And calling a country a "shithole" based on whatever factor Trump used or implied does not entail race or racism. That is not racism. You can call any country a shithole on something and you would not be wrong if there is general agreement on your position or something that ought to be changed should be changed. And just because you use a certain word to describe the state of a country does not imply racism. Aviartm (talk) 21:57, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Gaining empirical evidence from a few guards is not the way to gain an understanding of a complex situation. Claiming that Mexico is “sending” people here is completely devoid of evidence of any kind. Humans or may not commit illegal acts. No human is illegal. In any case, we use RS, not our own synthesis. O3000 (talk) 22:05, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree it is a bad way to gain insight on a small amount of border agents. Wikipedia does and must "adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States." And I am not here to argue whether a human is illegal or not based on your opinion. Based on what every country does, you are "illegal" if you divert from the country's proper method of immigration. Aviartm (talk) 22:20, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Aviartm, people cannot be "illegal". People are people. Calling them "illegals" is racist, I think. He called black countries (African and Haiti) "shitholes". That's racist. If he had an actual criticism of these countries to criticize them on, that would be something else. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:05, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Muboshgu Well, we have countries so if you do not follow their procedure of immigration, you are "illegal". Even if you were white and illegally crossing a border, you would be an "illegal". Just because a country south has Hispanic populations does not make it any more racist. Like I said previously, facts cannot be racist. And for the shithole comment, that was behind doors and remarks on that matter is essentially unknown but as stated, whatever factor Trump was complaining about is not racist. I'm sure you have complained about things countries have done or have, and I know I have, but complaining about it is not racism. Aviartm (talk) 22:20, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

And Mexico is "sending" people here as immigrants? No, that's not at all how immigration works. When your criticisms are all against Hispanics, Muslims, and Black people, don't be surprised if people consider you to be racist. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

The "Mexico is not sending their best" comment is obviously wrong. Most likely a euphemism at best. But that does not detract the fact that if you enter a country not through their procedure of travel/migration, you are "illegal entry". And again, facts cannot be racist. Aviartm (talk) 23:38, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

@Aviartm: As the Guardian piece I linked says, if someone commits a crime, that does not make them "illegal". It might make them a criminal. But someone who robs a store isn't "illegal". So why would we use that terminology on immigrants? Facts are not racist, but terms like "illegal" sure can be. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:03, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

As I stated previously, "illegal" is a societal interpretation of the action. It is not official, more of a substitute. "if someone commits a crime, that does not make them "illegal". It might make them a criminal." If you did broke the law, you are an outlaw, criminal, felon, offender, culprit, you name it. "So why would we use that terminology on immigrants?" - "Illegal" is for individuals who enter a country by circumventing the normal procedure of entry, not lawfully immigrating. Aviartm (talk) 00:10, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Ahh, so you appear to be saying that it is a nominalization, as opposed to correct English usage, clearly meant as a slur and repeatedly used by Trump and certain politicos as a slur. Fine. O3000 (talk) 00:23, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, just like hundreds if not thousands of other words in the English language today. Aviartm (talk) 00:42, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

A non-citizen is an alien if they enter illegally they are an illegal alien. There are places that are shitholes. SCAH (talk) 22:29, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

No human being is illegal. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:40, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, some of these folk are accused of illegally crossing the border. Some asked for refugee status, and were blocked, illegally. Another person is accused of running a fraudulent charity and a fraudulent “university” (both shut down by the gov’t); but I wouldn’t refer to him as an “illegal”. First I’ve actually heard of the word used as a noun. And in this case, almost exclusively in ref to Hispanics. Sounds extremely racist to me to refer to a human as less than human. Kinda the definition of racist. But, that’s just me. In any case, we uses RS. O3000 (talk) 22:54, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

And RS conforms to what Trump says if they do it honestly which makes them "reliable". And to describe someone as an "illegal" for unlawful entry into a country is just a societal interpretation of the action. "Sounds extremely racist to me to refer to a human as less than human," no where does it imply racism. If another country was in Mexico's place hypothetically and their largest demographic was white, it still would not be racist to call them a "illegal". I'm done. Aviartm (talk) 23:38, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

No your page on Racial_views_of_Donald_Trump is not accurate and none of the things that Trump said or did rise to the level of racism. At all. And yes racism is a legal term, there are standards for prosecution on hate crimes. Which he has not risen to. A large group of people thinking something does not make it true and yes, people think he is racist because they do not like him. Because of the media.Scotthart1 (talk) 21:07, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)We use reliable sources, not your opinions. And, this is not the correct place to argue about sources. That would be WP:RSN. O3000 (talk) 21:13, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Huzzah I finally got to correct my grammar on my previous edit! Too many edits going by. To 03000's point the use of biased sources is key to the problem with this page, yet I can see that an argument on this would clutter this page. I disagree with the use of certain sources and that pertains to this page. How do Wikipedia's rules on the matter run?Scotthart1 (talk) 21:24, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Scotthart1, certain sources are considered reliable and others aren't. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources has an incomplete list of them. We disagree with the use of some of the sources you've presented, such as the Washington Times, CNS News, and Daily Caller, which I and many others consider to be right-wing partisan. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:43, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

This is going to be the last edit for a bit as I have work; I do not agree with the use of the sources Wikipedia claims as reliable and recent events have pointed out their limitations. In general the use of left wing sources is a problem due to their financial interest in finding unflattering things about Trump. I have refrained from direct examples on the racial views page due to it being another page entirely. On this page the stance that he said racist things about Hispanics is cited to an article on the New York times that did not even closely resemble what this page states. "Many of his comments and actions have been perceived as racially charged or racist." is not even half of the story.Scotthart1 (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Scotthart1, we don't use left wing sources. Pages like Daily Kos are not RS. Sites like the New York Times, which the right believes is left wing, are actually not. And therein lies the heart of our disagreement. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:43, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Scotthart1, people believe the media? That's news to me. Perhaps he has not committed any hate crimes. That is a legal definition. "Racism" is not a legally defined term. Again, bring up anything SPECIFIC on the "racial views" page that you think is inaccurate. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Is it just me, or does this thread have a ton of WP:NOTAFORUM vio on all sides? Some of you know better. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:03, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Not just you and many of us are guilty in an attempt to stop illogical (as well as irrelevant) arguments. We need to stick to RS, and anyone that doesn’t like a source that is highly regarded needs to either stop or go to WP:RSN, which I hate to mention as it will be a time drain. O3000 (talk) 23:10, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Final paragraph of lead section

I have a problem with the inconsistency between stating that "the Justice Department appointed Robert Muller" and then later in the same paragraph saying that "Barr (along with Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein) then determined there was insufficient evidence of obstruction". Rosenstein was the one who appointed Muller, but by stating it was "the Justice Department" it appears to be an effort to give that decision more authoritative weight, while qualifying the latter statement appears to be an effort to discount the decision. That inconsistency is a subtle form of bias. The first sentence should say "Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein appointed Robert Muller" to maintain consistency within the paragraph and to avoid the appearance of bias. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:36, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Rreagan007, I can't object to this being standardized. Rosenstein represented the DOJ in appointing Mueller, just as Barr is representing the DOJ in that letter. "Name the person both times, or name the department both times" seems like a reasonable suggestion to me. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:06, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Because Sessions recused himself, Rosenstein was serving as acting attorney general when he appointed Mueller. He was not acting AG when he signed-off on Barr's letter. soibangla (talk) 23:21, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

He was the Deputy Attorney General both then and now, but for purposes of the Muller probe he was also the Acting Attorney General just for that one area where Sessions recused himself. Whether we refer to him as "Acting AG" or "Deputy AG" isn't a huge deal to me. I think it's probably less confusing if we just refer to him as "Deputy AG" in both places, but I'm fine with calling him "Acting AG" here. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:30, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Special counsel?

As a subheading under "Investigations", I don't think "Special counsel" is "more informative" than "Robert Mueller". "Special counsel" could mean anything. The subheading above names "James Comey", so why not name Mueller?--Jack Upland (talk) 18:39, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

How about Robert Mueller led Special Councel?--MONGO (talk) 20:20, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Personally, I think the best title would be "Special Counsel Robert Mueller's Investigation" Cosmic Sans (talk) 20:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree. That's much better.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:09, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I was the one who reverted it back to "special counsel". "Special counsel" could NOT mean anything, it is very specific, identifying the office conducting the investigation. I don't see why the name of the special counsel adds anything; in fact it detracts. It seems to assume that everyone knows who Robert Mueller is and what their role is; we should not so assume. And after all our article on the subject is called "Special counsel investigation"; it's not called "Robert Mueller investigation". The office is what is important, not the man. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, that assumes that the global readership understands what "Special Counsel" means.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:45, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

They can at least make a guess that it is some kind of official legal position. The global readership very likely doesn't have a clue who "Robert Mueller" is or what a section about him would signify. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, as part of that global readership, I would say that's generally untrue. There have been headlines about Mueller around the world:[9][10][11][12][13]--Jack Upland (talk) 19:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

This is not POV or SYNTH

@MelanieN: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Special_Counsel_investigation_(2017%E2%80%932019)&diff=prev&oldid=889748193 soibangla (talk) 19:02, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

How to detail the new findings presented by Attorney General William Barr to Congress?

Any ideas on how we should detail the findings here? Aviartm (talk) 21:12, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

No ideas before we see the findings and their coverage in reliable sources. Right now we know that Trump is exonerated (William Barr is the only authority here), and we can call the witch hunt a witch hunt in wiki-voice in the lead. The exonerations of Trump's associates aren't being reported as much as Trump's own exoneration by the DOJ so I'd say those don't belong. wumbolo ^^^ 22:31, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Wumbolo, except that Trump has not been exonerated on anything, and this "with hunt" resulted in 34 indictments, so there's that. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:36, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

There's not much to detail yet, and I think the fuller context will develop over the coming days. Trump has not been exonerated, but a few of the witches have been caught and dealt with.- Mr X 🖋 22:41, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

[14] If the DOJ says that there is not enough evidence to establish a crime, Trump is exonerated. wumbolo ^^^ 22:52, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Wumbolo, no that's not at all how the legal system works. Not having evidence to press charges does not mean someone is innocent. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:09, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Ironically, Mueller wrote “While this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him”[15] I have no idea how Wumbolo missed that since it's all over the news.- Mr X 🖋 23:54, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Lol.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:12, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is NOTACRYSTALBALL. I am not sure why we are even speculating what further investigations/persecutions will even occur. If the Special Counsel, which is the DOJ, finds that Trump did not collude with Russia (As it states here: The Special Counsel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. As the report states: “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities...the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference." And we already know that the letter does say "The Special Counsel states that “while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.” <-----However, this sentence is under the Obstruction of Justice section of the letter. This sentence does not include allegations of Russian collusion. Trump has been cleared on collusion but not on Obstruction of Justice. Aviartm (talk) 00:39, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Where did you get a copy of the Mueller report? O3000 (talk) 00:50, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

You know that there are ongoing investigations of Trump being conducted by the NY Attorney General, Southern District of New York, and various House committees, right? – Muboshgu (talk) 00:57, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Objective3000 & Muboshgu Never stated that I got it, but anyone that has been paying attention to the news has received or heard of the synopsis of the report. I am solely using Attorney General Barr's synopsis. That is it. Barr is the head of the DOJ. The Special Counsel is part of the DOJ. This is what the DOJ reported. And yes, Muboshgu, I know there are currently live investigations from NY AG, SDNY, House Committees, etc. However, currently, we are here to discuss the revealed findings of the Special Counsel, not what the NY AG finds, or what the SD of NY finds, or what the House Committees finds. Since, the SDNY investigation is looking into Trump's businesses, Inaugural Committee, etc.; NYAG is looking at Trump's projects over the years; House Committee is looking into obstruction of justice, yet that is dependent on what the DOJ finds and concludes; and as Chairman Nadler tweeted today: "In light of the very concerning discrepancies and final decision making at the Justice Department following the Special Counsel report, where Mueller did not exonerate the President, we will be calling Attorney General Barr in to testify before @HouseJudiciary in the near future." When those investigations release their findings, then we shall converse again in the future but those investigations are inconsequential to the Special Counsel's findings. It should only be appropriate to discuss today's findings and not speculate on future investigations' findings. So these other, separate investigations should not distract us from the only thing we are to be discussing about, the Department of Justice synopsis of the Special Counsel's final report.

Aviartm (talk) 02:29, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Just replying to what Muboshgu said above, "that's not at all how the legal system works. Not having evidence to press charges does not mean someone is innocent". Well, actually it does. In the USA, there is something called the presumption of innocence and according to WP:BLP Wikipedia believes in it too. The article should be edited based on the reported facts, not on some belief that the "truth is out there". This is about Robert Mueller, not Fox Mulder.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:05, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Actually, the precedent for any investigation that looks into potential obstruction by a president is that Congress decides whether or not there's anything actionable. For the Attorney General, a person appointed by the subject of the investigation no less, to give his opinion in this way is extremely unusual. Barr's short letter is a political statement designed to shape opinion on what the rest of the report means. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:24, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

The initial investigation into obstruction of justice started in the FBI and then moved into the Special Counsel very soon afterwards. And no, it is not unusual for the Attorney General to give his "opinion". It is DOJ protocol to do what the DOJ did. And it was more than just Barr who worked on the synopsis. Rosenstein did, DOJ associates as well, not just Barr. This is the consensus that the DOJ reached. Aviartm (talk) 12:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Regardless, presumption of innocence is still the rule to follow.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:38, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

"Presumption of innocence" is a very different thing from "exoneration". Presumption of innocence means whether we can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt; it says nothing about the person's actual innocence or guilt. Exoneration means actually proven or legally declared "factually innocent", something that occasionally happens when a case is dismissed or a conviction overturned. At this point we have Barr's statement that Mueller "did not find" that Trump or associates conspired or cooperated with the Russians. We do not have a statement that Mueller "found that they did not" conspire. Big difference. And of course on the obstruction charges, Mueller specifically did not exonerate Trump, and Barr/Rosenstein only concluded that they could not prove the case in a court of law. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:03, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Jack Upland I agree with you on that. On obstruction of justice, Trump is not exonerated for now as per the DOJ's findings. On Russian interference, they found no evidence of the Trump Campaign colluding/conspiring/coordinating with Russian entities to manipulate the election. Aviartm (talk) 15:52, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

User:MelanieN, it is not true that "presumption of innocence means whether we can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt". Presumption of innocence means that we assume someone is innocence until he or she is found guilty in a court. Allegations and investigations do not imply guilt. As Trump is "well-known", we can report it though. That is clearly Wikipedia policy. I think "exoneration" is a word to avoid. Generally, in the US legal system, and in other systems, you don't get "exonerated". A finding of not guilty might only mean lack of proof. But if you go to trial that implies that the prosecutors believe there is enough proof. However, Mueller had no power to pronounce Trump guilty or not guilty. Therefore it is misleading to say that Mueller exonerated or did not exonerate Trump.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:26, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Jack Upland, this isn't a court of law, this is an investigation that has had to determine whether or not to press charges on certain people. The word "exonerated" is used by the Special Counsel to specifically denote that "Individual One" has not been cleared by the investigation, that charges could be brought by the AG if the AG so chose to do so. And of course, the AG declined to. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:31, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

The Attorney General declined with reason, which DAG Rosenstein agreed with. They both concluded the same thing per the four-page letter. Aviartm (talk) 04:43, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Aviartm, which reason, though? Is he serving his boss, or the People? Nothing is "concluded" as far as we know. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:51, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Muboshgu Following United States law, it is concluded, which is the four-page letter summary of the report. There would be no way in hell that Barr would lie on a summary just to have the final report come out and contradict. No way that would happen. Aviartm (talk) 04:59, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Aviartm, probably not, but WP:CRYSTAL. Crazier things have happened. And when the report gets released, House Democrats can take the next step in the investigation. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:01, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Muboshgu That policy would be true if I acted on it but I am not. Of course there is the chance that Barr's summary is a contradiction waiting to be disproved but by his track record and his high regards for the Justice Department, I would says the chances are nonexistent. And the report could possibly further squash what House Democrats have currently concluded on, just like what the synopsis has done. Aviartm (talk) 05:07, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Muboshgu No, this isn't a court of law, and no one said it was. But you shouldn't enforce Wikipedia policies against other people and disregard them yourself.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:06, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Trump has repeatedly denied accusations of collusion and obstruction of justice

This is taken from the lead. I think it should simply say: "Trump denied accusations of collusion and obstruction of justice". Firstly, I think the tense of the sentence should be same as those around it. Secondly, why "repeatedly"? He was faced with serious accusations and denied them. Clearly he repeated that denial. Of course he did. So would anyone in that situation. Why is important to say "repeatedly"? Is it implying Trump's denials were excessive or frantic...???--Jack Upland (talk) 19:07, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Good point. I think we should leave out that unnecessary adverb. Aviartm (talk) 20:22, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

The other thing with the past perfect tense — "has repeatedly denied" — is that it suggests his denials were in the past and completed at some point in the past, i.e., has denied but no longer denies. Perhaps it would be better to say Trump "denies" because he hasn't stopped denying.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:03, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I was the one who reinstated "repeatedly". I think that is important. If we just say "Trump denied" it sounds like he issued one statement once. In fact he has denied it ("NO COLLUSION!") virtually every time he has opened his mouth for the past year and a half. If we don't say "has repeatedly denied" we need to say something else to indicate how frequent - indeed constant - his denials have been. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:16, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Most people who are accused of serious crimes express that denial frequently.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:09, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Trump was yelling "NO COLLUSION", "WITCH HUNT"; "13 ANGRY DEMOCRATS" (who were mostly Republicans) daily even though Mueller hadn't accused him of anything. Even while in the Rose Garden with foreign leaders. Even before talking to major events. He's still doing it. I've never heard of anything approaching this. Surely we can afford the space of one adjective. O3000 (talk) 19:17, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, I think that's Trump's style, which the word "repeatedly" doesn't capture. I think it's an unnecessary word, but at least I think I (now) know why you want it to be there.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:49, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with MelanieN and O3000. 'Repeatedly' is descriptive and verifiable. It informs readers of an important characteristic of the subject. It should stay, although 'frantic' would be an interesting second choice.- Mr X 🖋 13:02, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Now that we know the results of the investigation, the paragraph should be re-written. I suggest it begin, "A special counsel investigation found no links between the Trump campaign and the Russian government regarding its election interference. However, it lead to guilky pleas...." TFD (talk) 14:12, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Except that we don't know the results of the investigation. William Barr's brief letter only gives us part of the picture. Also, although the Special Counsel's part of the investigation has concluded, the larger investigation continues. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:49, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

There's no deadline. Apparently the party line is that the AG has misrepresented the report. In a couple of weeks they will be saying they never accused Trump of collusion and we can re-visit this. TFD (talk) 16:06, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree. As discussed above, Wikipedia's policy is presumption of innocence, but this is presumption of guilt. Editors have repeatedly suggested that Barr misrepresented Mueller. Also, Mueller simply didn't find enough evidence and didn't exonerate Trump. Also, there are ongoing investigations. Well, there will be investigations all through Trump's presidency. But the policy is that we don't presume someone's guilt merely because there are investigations.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

We *do* know the results, the results were determined by Barr and Rosenstein. But “no links” is incorrect ... links were investigated, and evidence judged. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 18:25, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

This line is stupid

"Barr went beyond Mueller's determination to add that he and Rosenstein determined there was insufficient evidence of criminal obstruction of justice".

He didn't go beyond anything he came to a determination while Mueller didn't and left that determination to Barr. SCAH (talk) 14:38, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

More specifically, he left that determination to the Department of Justice, which is conveniently led by a conflicted Trump appointee who refused to recuse himself. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:51, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

still a stupid line that makes no sense. SCAH (talk) 15:32, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

That is SYNTH and I am going to remove it. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

MelanieN It's the last line of the lede SCAH (talk) 18:08, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

it`s spelled lead 2600:1702:2340:9470:2C69:3A66:F84C:ACCC (talk) 18:37, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lede SCAH (talk) 18:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

They put it in the lead too? Sheesh! I have removed it. BTW journalists use the term "lede"; WP prefers "lead"; but both are correct. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:56, 27 March 2019 (UTC) P.S. see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:57, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

WP prefers "lead"; but both are correct. Not exactly. If Wikipedia prefers lead, lead is more correct at Wikipedia. Wikipedia also has local definitions for a few words including "notability", definitions that trump the dictionary at Wikipedia. This is precisely why the opening paragraph of the guideline you linked is written the way it is. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:38, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Like I said, Wikipedia prefers "lead". That doesn't mean "lede" is wrong - much less that we should make snippy corrections of users who say "lede" - a spelling I used here for years before (mostly) switching to "lead" recently. Correcting or mocking another person's spelling merely detracts from what talk pages are supposed to be for. MelanieN alt (talk) 15:07, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I can call it lead or lede, it is up to me not anyone else, unless Wikipedia makes a rule about what I must call it which would be beyond stupid, and anyway I only call it lede because I have noticed it being called that all the time on talk pages. SCAH (talk) 15:17, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Henceforth, to avoid arguments like this, I shall call it TTaTT (That Thing at The Top). O3000 (talk) 15:26, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Ahem! Actually you should call it TTatT. MOS for capitalization, doncha know. 0;-D MelanieN alt (talk) , carrying the nit picking to even more absurd levels. 16:34, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I must have been thinking of The Top, Cure's fifth album. O3000 (talk) 16:49, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I used to call it intro, but I think that sounds retro.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:33, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

The first bit. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:11, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

All that matters is that you keep in mind when writing the leedede thingy: The First Cut Is the Deepest. O3000 (talk) 22:10, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Most here are missing the entire point of the spelling difference, which is to emphasize the difference between a Wikipedia lead and a newspaper lede. That is not insignificant; this is not just pedantic nitpicking about a typo or spelling error, as if somebody had been corrected for typing "occassionally".
Melanie, nobody has been "mocked" in this thread, nobody has been "snippy" here, and "correcting" each other is what we do because a large part of Wikipedia knowledge is gained by word-of-mouth. If you don't feel this is an important distinction, that's your choice, but you're clearly out of step with the prevailing community view evidenced in the guideline. I would use "informing" in place of "correcting"; editors who get offended when they are informed about something by other editors will be perpetually unhappy editing Wikipedia.
For those who think I'm taking shit too seriously, (1) you may be right, and (2) too bad. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:14, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

It seems like, on Wikipedia, arguments over minutiae is a lede-ing cause of conflict. WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 00:26, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I could swear there's too many commas in the comment of yours, WanderingWanda. These are the sort of things that really trigger me! -- Scjessey (talk) 12:10, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

this is typical of what goes on in Wikipedia and society as a whole..the corruption of language not the evolution of it..the word is lead..the word lede was originally a typo or the result of a reporter who couldn't spell..you may say it is irrelevant but it is a typical and fundamental example of the erosion of society as is using adverbs at the beginning of sentences " so..have you heard Trump has a thing for young girls ? google Donald Trump, Jane Doe " which technically is not grammatically incorrect but is never the less not the king`s English and is improper if not vulgar although is used constantly in news reports and everyday speech but not so much even two or three years ago.03:41, 31 March 2019 (UTC)107.217.84.95 (talk)

Description of Barr "synopsis" needs a source

The latest Barr letter suggests that his "synopsis" is not a "synopsis."[16] In fact, it is not a summary but just a letter. Major news outlets issued corrections on this. "Find" or "establish" are legal terms, but used here in common English. Mueller did not "find no collusion" per Barr, he simply did not finish his indictment before his investigation was shut down. PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 02:07, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

As far as I know, the investigation ended when Mueller ran out of leads. Do you have any source that says otherwise? I don't think Mueller is so inefficient that with two years, an army of investigators and plea-bargaining power, that he would have left any stones unturned. TFD (talk) 05:25, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Let's not speculate as to why Mueller ended the investigation. We have no reliable sources saying Barr shut him down, nor do we have reliable sources saying he ran out of leads. R2 (bleep) 18:04, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

We have no information about why he chose to shut things down now, or what exactly he said about collusion. Mueller's reputation is such that I'm sure he would have been thorough - unless he was ordered to close down which is also a possibility. I notice that the media are calling it a "Barr memo" or "Barr report". If we are calling it a synopsis or summary we need to change that; he himself says that's not what it is. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:41, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I changed it from "summary" to "a letter about the report". That seems very neutral. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:57, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Mueller is still involved with Corsi, Miller, and the mystery Grand Jury. Other investigations were farmed out to SDNY, EDNY etc. I get that this is an evolving story and there is some SYNTH possible if we tie this too closely together, but we haven't seen the report. What we do know is that Barr already had to walk back his letter with a second letter. We also know that Mueller was involved in various activities in Stone's prosecution only days before he issued his final report. We know that McConnell and the Republicans are trying to prevent the release of the report. I'm not saying that all belongs in the lead section. It seems, however, that the Special Counsel's Office is operating much as it was before, despite Barr sending two letters that make reference to a report that nobody even knows exists right now. I would say this is a hugely important moment in Trump's life. I think we need to make sure the article remains neutral as this evolving story continues to evolve. We need to avoid giving too much weight to Barr as a source of truth since he is being attacked as a political operative who disgraced the DOJ - by conservative commentators like Jennifer Rubin. Again, not saying we need to impeach Barr's credibility in this article, but right now the whole Mueller story is hiding behind a very carefully worded set of sentences. Perhaps it should say something like, "Attorney General Barr wrote a controversial letter claiming that the report did not establish proof of Trump's alleged crimes, nor did it exonerate him on obstruction of justice. The report has not been released and Barr has not promised to release it without extensive redaction." PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 03:31, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Aside from your comment that Barr "walked back" his first letter, your comment made lots of sense... until you got to your proposal, which reads to me as being grossly non-neutral. The current wording is neutral. I agree that it could be trimmed. There's no need to quote Barr so extensively. R2 (bleep) 19:23, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I think we have the right amount of information about the Barr letter. We are quoting the things that every source has quoted, and our tone is neutral. The proposed replacement sentences are unacceptable. I don't think you will find many neutral reliable sources describing the letter as "controversial" - much less referring to "Trump's alleged crimes". -- MelanieN (talk) 19:53, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

See latest NYT on this: [17] PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 23:55, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the decision not to include the 19 sexual misconduct allegations in the lead because they're "not proven"

I guess it is just a case of he said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said. WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 07:43, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

(Refers to #Current consensus item 6. Count of "she said"s checked and is in fact 19.) ―Mandruss ☎ 07:52, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I didn't actually count them; I'm just trusting Mandruss's report.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:54, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:11, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

The January–February 2018 RfC received plenty of participation. Unless you can show that something has changed since then (enough to tip the scale), or you have a previously unconsidered line of argument, I don't think further discussion is warranted. If you haven't read the RfC, you might want to do so. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:59, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, the comment was a response to what I read of that RfC (Specifically all the comments about how the allegations "aren't proven" or are "just gossip".) WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 04:33, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

This issue is not going to go away Mandruss03:43, 31 March 2019 (UTC)107.217.84.95 (talk)

The issue kind of did go away. To recap the RFCs then — both determined it was not suitable for LEAD material. Mostly a Biographical LEAD needed to be a big issue or palpable effect on his life or a big part of his story and the count just was not. These seemed dead issues not having significant amount in article or coverage WEIGHT. The rfc noted this article simply had many other items of bigger stories with more to say and this area has two paragraphs re Access Hollywood tape and one line on there being this news blip one week(?) on this. It’s about how little coverage the list/count of these got — many of these showed up just before the election and went way after it, others were simply noting something from decades ago even if recanted, so no ongoing story. There were also quibbles over the count “19” as it sounded vague/phony and did conflict with other cites saying 15 or 17 and different names. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 09:05, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

It's true that the various plausible sexual misconduct allegations against him didn't receive as much press coverage as they should have. But the Access Hollywood tape where Trump bragged about being a sex pest did, at least, receive a huge amount of media attention. That deserves a mention in the lead if nothing else. WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 04:33, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

The fact they did not receive as much attention as they should have means they fail weight since we base weight on the attention received. The Access Hollywood tape is more relevant to the campaign article. Everyone will have a different opinion of what they find important about Trump, but we have to allow external sources to determine what is most important. TFD (talk) 05:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

User:WanderingWanda You can search the archives above - the discussions concluding to not include allegations included considering the tape. Reflecting it’s greater coverage and impact, the Access tape got two paragraphs in the body and a pointer to the article about it. The allegations got just one line and a pointer to the article on 21 (not 19) of them, which I believe excluded one or two more fringe items. (“Jane Doe” comes to mind.) Nothing went to lead in October 2016 partly because it was UNDUE and RECENTISM then just a short time in coverage, partly that it was rather tabloid, partly that it had no BLP significant impact to his life and little content here so is not LEAD, partly that some of the allegations were rather extreme. If you want to propose text or do RFC, you can ... but I do not think that likely, as these have not got much coverage since. Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 00:28, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Having reviewed the RfC in question, it's clear that WanderingWanda is misrepresenting its outcome and rationale. The closer was pretty clear when they wrote that "there are a significant majority of editors here who believe the allegations are not that significant." Of the dozens of editors who resisted inclusion of the allegations in the lead, only a few said anything about them being unproven. R2 (bleep) 18:25, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

"Investigations — Special counsel"

A lot of this is now out of date and redundant, for example:

The Washington Post reported that after Comey's dismissal the special counsel started investigating whether Trump had obstructed justice.[775] Trump's lawyer Jay Sekulow stated that he had not been notified of any such investigation.[776][777] ABC News later reported that the special counsel was gathering preliminary information about possible obstruction of justice but had not launched a full-scale investigation.[778]
In January 2018 it was reported that Mueller wanted to interview Trump about the removal of Flynn and Comey.[784] For most of 2018 there was discussion between Mueller's office and White House attorneys about whether Trump would give Mueller an in-person interview or written answers to questions, and what subjects would be covered. Trump himself said publicly he was willing to be interviewed.[785] In November 2018 he said he was preparing written answers to a set of questions, and in late November his legal team said he had submitted answers to the counsel's written questions about "issues regarding the Russia-related topics of the inquiry."[786]

Does anyone object to out of date material being removed?--Jack Upland (talk) 07:59, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

These excerpts are relevant historical information about what was known at various points in time. Surely this article can be trimmed, but the information should remain in the main article about the investigation. — JFG ^talk 10:01, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, trimming was what I was talking about.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:15, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

The first bullet seems redundant. The second should remain, at least until the special counsel report is released.- Mr X 🖋 15:08, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Seem removable as just the state at that point in time, that investigations happened is the larger point and the bureaucratic minute bits are not a *biographical* significance or enduring WEIGHT. There’s no palpable effect that it reached the end via this particular detailed route rather than some other, and the route of that days status just got momentary insignificant coverage compared to some other activities here. So, these seem trimmable. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 09:24, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

This is whitewash scrubbing. The article needs to note this historical information. PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 02:08, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't see why it's a whitewash. The historically significant facts will remain, but I don't think we need a blow by blow account in this article. Maybe the main article could use them.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:49, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

The article needs to say that the Comey firing triggered the appointment of the special counsel. That was a critical moment in Trump's presidency, regardless of the outcome of the investigation. What Sekulow knew at the time should have been trimmed long ago. It's not pertinent to Trump's biography. The "gathering preliminary information" sentence is indeed way out of date and should have been removed long ago. We've known for ages that there's been a full-scale obstruction investigation. The Trump interview stuff could be slightly streamlined. The quote is unnecessary, but otherwise it seems like it should stay. R2 (bleep) 18:10, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

RE the first bullet point, I have changed it from "after Comey's dismissal the special counsel started investigating whether Trump had obstructed justice" to "as a result of Comey's dismissal the special counsel also investigated whether Trump had obstructed justice". The other wording makes no sense because the special counsel wasn't even appointed until after Comey had been fired. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:00, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

The section now seems greatly improved, thanks to all involved.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:24, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

RfC on Spygate

Please be aware of this RfC: Talk:Spygate (conspiracy theory by Donald Trump)#"False conspiracy theory" in lead – Muboshgu (talk) 03:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Impeachment efforts

This section is currently a copy of the lead to the main article, Efforts to impeach Donald Trump. As I pointed out there,[18] this text is out of date, most of it citing sources from 2017. In addition, there is a sentence about the 25th Amendment which is purely speculative. Clearly, the section as it stands has to go. Perhaps there is no need for a section on impeachment here, as no progress has been made so far.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:27, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it is speculation and this section should be removed. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 10:07, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I would agree with removing it. Not only is it speculation, but it is massively out of date. It can be restored if there are actual efforts made in that direction - such as recommendations from the Judiciary Committee - but at this point, with Pelosi having virtually ruled it out and the Mueller report providing little or no support, that seems unlikely. I think it can be left out of this biography. However, we should find some place to put the "see also" reference to the main impeachment article. NOTE: Even though we three seem to agree, we must not remove it right now. Three people in the space of a few hours is not consensus. This is longstanding content, and we should wait a few days for more input before taking any action. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:52, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Odd as it may seem I am favor of keeping it in as there have been numerous higher level elected persons that have said everything from "we should impeach him" to "impeach the mother*^%*".[19] I think the level of hate mongering and vitriol that his opposition have had and in discussing impeachment are noteworthy. We just need to update this.--MONGO (talk) 15:13, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I would think you could make that into one sentence (at the top of the "Investigations" section perhaps). As Melanie said, nothing much is happening, so it is misleading to have a section on it, and it is hard to update...--Jack Upland (talk) 19:35, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree that we can do away with this section. The "efforts to impeach" page can be linked to, with an appropriately sized section, from the Presidency of Donald Trump article. Impeachment is not serious enough a possibility to mention here. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:40, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

The Presidency of Donald Trump already links to Efforts to impeach Donald Trump. If impeachment was mentioned here, it could be mentioned under "Protests", because that is all calls of impeachment have been. Arguably, the fact that people were calling for Trump to be impeached even before he took office is notable.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:57, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I fully support removing this section, but actually for different reasons than those articulated above. I don't think there's anything wrong with the section, and I'm not even really bothered by the fact that it's a little out of date. What bothers me is that it isn't (and never has been) biographically significant, just as calls for Obama to be impeached weren't biographically significant for the Barack Obama article. In fact, I'd be comfortable with this being boldly removed, as long as a link to Efforts to impeach Donald Trump is placed in Template:Donald Trump. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:04, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

It's a lot out of date.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:58, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

keep it.107.217.84.95 (talk) 03:08, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Is it OK to remove it now? There seems to be a strong consensus after 10 days.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:18, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I'd keep a sentence or two. It's notable that a president has been subject to relentless calls for impeachment since his election, supposedly for an "illegitimate election", "treason" and "conspiracy with the enemy", and that the only attempt to introduce actual articles of impeachment failed by a large margin. — JFG ^talk 06:18, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, I've removed it, as that is what the consensus is. I don't think we can have a section based around a couple of sentences and a massively failed vote.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:23, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with this removal. While the section should possibly be updated or trimmed, we can't have an article on Donald Trump that doesn't once mention the word "impeachment," considering that impeachment efforts have been a major issue during his presidency so far, and something that received extensive attention even before he took office. We should at the very least keep a shorter section or mention the issue in a relevant section. --Tataral (talk) 22:28, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Updates needed

Two significant developments should be added to the special counsel investigation section.

The congressional subpoena for the full report from the DOJ.[20]
"Some of Robert S. Mueller III’s investigators have told associates that Attorney General William P. Barr failed to adequately portray the findings of their inquiry and that they were more troubling for President Trump than Mr. Barr indicated, according to government officials and others familiar with their simmering frustrations."[21][22] - Mr X 🖋 12:29, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Apparently Mueller's guys think that their case against Trump is actually very compelling with respect to collusion. Our article as written is flawed because it implies that Mueller "Found no collusion" when in fact, it was that he had evidence but not enough to complete his indictment. PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 01:13, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Please don’t post the morning feed here. There really should be a 48 hour waiting period, to give at least some time for seeing what reactions are and for some WEIGHT to develop (or not). These really don’t seem likely anyway - neither one has much ‘biographical’ about it to suit this article, and neither looks like much of a story. There is not an actual subpoena and Barr said mid-April release before this, so the first seems SPECULATION. And workers would have written differently seems a given as everyone writes differently. And also irrelevant as Meuller is the SC one whose writing was required and what counts, Barr is the AG one who determines the outcome, and in a couple weeks Congress will likely have the report and be making direct and more specific comments. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:25, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:31, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Off-topic aspersions — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acroterion (talk • contribs) 03:39, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Of course the Trump partisan "waiting period" brigade is here. How about we remove Barr's cover-up propaganda from the article and have a waiting period until we get the real Mueller report before we characterize it? Does fake impartial admin but actual Trump supporter MelanieN have thoughts that this is biased as well? This is disgusting. I can't believe Wikipedia fell so easily to right-wing propagandist trolls. PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 02:35, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

My impression is Melanie leans left but is likely the least partisan editor here. Care to retract your comment?--MONGO (talk) 02:58, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

@PunxatawneyPickle: please stop with the aspersions. This isn't the cable news chyron feed. Acroterion (talk) 03:01, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Labeling editors does no one any favors and only creates animosity. As Acroterion states, "Please stop". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:06, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Right now every Wikipedia editor is complicit in the propaganda cover-up campaign if we allow the current reporting, legitimizing Barr, to stand while sources are released contradicting him. Every single mainstream media source, from the NYT to the WaPo to CNN, made the same mistake and is now retracting it. I am sorry if MelanieN feels that I am inaccurately characterizing her political lean. There's nothing biased about simply treating Trump as he unequivocally historically is. PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 03:30, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Let me try again. The article as it stands now is inaccurate. It needs to be updated to avoid being inaccurate. The longer we wait, the more it is inaccurate. PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 03:43, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

PunxtawneyPickle, I presume you want to add some text to the end of the #Special counsel section. Can you make a proposal for the specific wording you think we should use? Bradv🍁 03:54, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

@Markbassett: That wasn't a morning feed, and if you wish to impose a waiting period on information on Wikipedia, please take your proposal to a central location to seek community consensus. Please stop posting this 48 hour waiting period demand in virtually every talk page discussion. Cheers.

I have only heard one objections to my actually proposal that we update the article with brief information about these two significant developments. I'll go ahead an do it when I have more time.- Mr X 🖋 11:28, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I fully support MrX's sensible suggestions for updates. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:15, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't see the point of adding speculative information when the report is to be released in a week or so. If the intention to add some anti-Trump spin to the article then I totally oppose it.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:10, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

User:MrX

Please means please, a polite request. Take it to mean your afternoon feed instead, if it was then.
The desire is to avoid a rush to insert items (the Washington Post about 8 hours old) before any WEIGHT or results appear, as discussed and somewhat liked in archive 95. The papers have to write something everyday — we do not have to include each.
This item just is not biographically significant. If it somehow continues in coverage, after that it would be WEIGHT suitable to propose at the Special Counsel article. Unless it somehow demonstrates as a significant impact to his life though, it just doesn’t belong in BLP. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:52, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

The above POV is similar to that of a partisan and should be discounted due to bias. Some individuals seek to spin, rather than to explain. Hopefully, that observation isn't a personal attack. If it is considered such by Wikipedia policy, I apologize. PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 02:02, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Comment on content, not on contributors. Please take this seriously, and for the last time, stop casting aspersions. Acroterion (talk) 02:21, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Markbassett, this information is every bit as biographically relevant as the material already in the article. We have an entire paragraph about Barr's four page letter. Adding an additional sentence about the content of the letter through the eyes of the people that conducted the investigations seems pretty important, especially when it directly references the subject of this article. The extraordinary fact that congress has to actually subpoena the report is also pretty relevant. If you want to argue wight, I'm happy to do a source by source comparison of the coverage about the investigator's criticism and the subpoena, with, let's say, golf courses or the New Jersey Generals. - Mr X 🖋 02:24, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

User:MrX - this seems just story-du-jour trivia without effect or WEIGHT. Barr had impact on Trumps life, he got to decide that obstruction of justice charges would not be brought. Meuller had impact on Trumps life - he got to decide Trump had not coordinated with Russians, and on associates being charged or not. A couple unnamed people who didn't like how Barr wrote and were talking to a couple papers but has not seen wider effects -- just factually have not had any impact on Trumps life. It seems unlikely it will, it has not been making progress that way and when the actual Meuller report release is done in a couple weeks, I expect Congress will make their own commentary and get all the coverage and any actual impact. It seems not at all unexpected that at least one person out of dozens in Meullers team would dislike the way Barr wrote, or wish he had included their bit, folks do vary in how they write. And then the Post notes others on the team disagree with that assessment and names third parties and just not a lot to say about the whoever disliked the report. You can compare to google Trump Golf course (78.7 Million hits) if you want -- but given the short timeframe I doubt it will be much. And if it is sizeable it still lacks impact on Trumps life so this isn't the article it belongs at. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:27, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Point 1 is a process development, not significant enough for the main Trump bio, fine for the Mueller probe article. Point 2 is just speculation + partisan innuendo, undue here or elsewhere. — JFG ^talk 03:38, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, it contains a process point, but the significance is that the legislative branch has to step in to get the plain facts in the in the first place. If we can go into exhaustive detail about a four page letter, we owe it to our readers to briefly inform them that the report has been subpoenaed because it will allegedly take the DOJ, with it's 115,583 employees, three weeks to redact a 300+ page document.

Regarding point two: What sources are you using that say Mueller's investigators are engaging in partisan innuendo? That's an astonishing claim that I would love to see you back up with evidence. Bonus points if you can explain how WrestleMania is more important than the outcome of a major investigation into Trump's activities as candidate and as president.- Mr X 🖋 11:34, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

My writing "partisan innuendo" is inferred from the nature and timing of the leak, but I have no intent of making that case in article text. This is a talk page where editors can freely debate the merits of including a piece of content or not. The main point that I made remains valid: we should not give any weight to anonymous speculation. The report is scheduled to be released within a couple weeks, and WP:there is no deadline, so we can safely wait for additional commentary at that time. — JFG ^talk 13:27, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

The nature and timing aren't weird at all. The Mueller team files a report, the report is "summarized" by a Trump appointee, and then the Mueller team objects to the characterization of that summary. What's odd about that? -- Scjessey (talk) 13:34, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

What's odd is that Mueller has kept silent, and whoever leaked that to the press did not say their name. All these attorneys are sworn to secrecy, and I was actually impressed that almost nothing leaked out of the Mueller team for over two years. Prosecutors speak in indictments, and Mueller has done exactly that. Good job. The court of public opinion is irrelevant. — JFG ^talk 14:41, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

It also seems to be hearsay.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:13, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

The reliable sources didn't seem to think so.- Mr X 🖋 19:17, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

They seem to be reporting it as hearsay, i.e, they haven't spoken directly to the investigators.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:28, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

"Hearsay" is legal term relevant to court proceedings. This has nothing to do with court proceedings.- Mr X 🖋 12:14, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

"Hearsay" is also a general term. This is almost on the status of a rumour.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:19, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I would also point out that the reason that hearsay is inadmissible in a court of law is because it is notoriously unreliable. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:30, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

User:JFG That point 2 is agreed SPECULATION should be enough to exclude. User:MrX the explanation is that Wrestlemania was REAL events in Trumps life and this is not. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:49, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Sometimes I think I'm living in a parallel universe, where everything is backwards. How many times does this need to be said? Reliable sources have confirmed many of Mueller's investigators are unhappy with the Barr letter. It doesn't matter that these are anonymous sources, because these media outlets only publish such statements when they have been independently confirmed. That's the way journalism works, for crying out loud. Sometimes I just can't even... -- Scjessey (talk) 12:11, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Scjessey no, RS did not say “many” and unnamed sources are not being conveyed as anything other than hearsay presumed from at least two anonymous officials who plausibly might know - that “some” of the 60+ investigators “viewed their findings as potentially more damaging for Trump”. And some do not. At the moment, nothing actual other than SPECULATION both ways. I’d guess it may be less damaging or it may be more damaging, or it may be about the same. But we shouldn’t put in unnamed peoples guesses as if it made any difference. In a couple weeks when the release is out, we’ll all find out by having *real* events with citeable big names. No need to mention rumours that are small WEIGHT and have not had any actual significant effect on Trump’s life worth. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:10, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Did you even read the two sources provided? -- Scjessey (talk) 14:52, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

From the first source provided, the NYT piece [23]..."Some of Robert S. Mueller III’s investigators"...doesn't say who, how many or if its even a plurality. Goes on to say "The officials and others interviewed declined to flesh out why some of the special counsel’s investigators viewed their findings as potentially more damaging for the president than Mr. Barr explained, although the report is believed to examine Mr. Trump’s efforts to thwart the investigation."...so they did not even say why they have an issue with it? and of course adds "the report is believed"...believed by whom, the NYT? in the same paragraph the piece says "It was also unclear how widespread the vexation is among the special counsel team, which included 19 lawyers, about 40 F.B.I. agents and other personnel"...in other words, this is a load of speculation based on heresay, rumor and innuendo. Completely unsuitable for this bio as far as I am concerned.--MONGO (talk) 15:16, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

It's like some of you don't understand how journalism works at all. I'm seriously laughing at some of these responses. The NYT doesn't just make shit up to fit in with a preferred narrative. They only publish if they have corroborating sources, which they don't (of course) have to identify. It's a piece of reporting, not an NYT opinion piece. We cannot and must not allow Trump's fact-free hatred of the media to infect Wikipedia. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:57, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

What's your proposed wording?--MONGO (talk) 18:32, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I haven't written any. MrX indicated he thought we needed some changes to reflect what has happened, and I support those changes. I'm guessing we are at the just-talking-about-it-before-getting-into-specifics stage. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:02, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Can we stop the personal attacks, insults, and patronising comments?--Jack Upland (talk) 19:49, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any in this thread. There's plenty of trashing of reliable sources going on though, and a heap of cognitive dissonance. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:04, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Scjessey Yes I did read thru them, and they did not say “many”, nor are they conveying it as anything other than hearsay relayed to them. Seems just to have not been big enough to get BBC coverage and really seems meaningless. In a couple weeks we will have actual text and responses by big names, no need to insert an example that gossip and speculation exists. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:34, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Compromise: We accept the existing text as discussed above, but remove it as soon as the Mueller report is released.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:02, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

No. Just mention this in the Mueller investigation's article, if it's not there already. Way undue for this bio. — JFG ^talk 17:04, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

In that case, the following needs to be removed from the lead because it is incomplete: "Attorney General William Barr wrote that the special counsel's final report did not find that Trump or his campaign had 'conspired or coordinated' with Russia during the 2016 election, and did not reach a conclusion regarding obstruction of justice, neither implicating him regarding obstruction of justice nor exonerating him." -- Scjessey (talk) 17:07, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

But, JFG, it is currently in the article and has been for days. In other words, are we arguing about something that will be irrelevant in a week?--Jack Upland (talk) 18:09, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Scjessey. We can't go on and on about Barr's attempt to exculpate Trump while ignoring facts that repudiate Barr's version of reality. Of course things may change after the full black magic markered version of the report is released in the near future.- Mr X 🖋 21:02, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

One sentence in the lead doesn't seem like going "on and on" about anything. And it was Barr's legal duty to summarize the special council's report for Congress, which he apparently did in consultation with the deputy attorney general and other high-ranking members of the Dept. of Justice. These unsubstantiated conspiracy theories about Russian collusion involving the Trump campaign have been hanging out there for almost 2 years now, and when the Special Council and Department of Justice say there was no collusion, we get more conspiracy theories from unnamed sources about hearsay that the Attorney General and Department of Justice are covering up for Trump. This is beyond ridiculous. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:38, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

MrX ~~asserts that we should ignore~~ talks about Barr's attempt to exculpate Trump while ignoring facts that repudiate Barr's version of reality, and I can't help but wonder whose "version of reality" is imaginary. I don't care one way or another what Trump or his coterie have done, but when 2.5 years of investigation have uncovered nothing implicating him, it's time to accept that "version of reality" and drop the proverbial stick. — JFG ^talk 00:12, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

when 2.5 years of investigation have uncovered nothing implicating him.... If you've seen the Mueller Report, please post it. Sorry, that was a tad snarky. But, how would you know this? O3000 (talk) 00:15, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

We know it because that is what the Attorney General in consultation with others at the Dept. of Justice who have read the report have told us. Until we actually get to read the report ourselves, this is the definitive authority on the matter. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:44, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, isn’t that why we have WP:RECENTISM? This is an encyclopedia. We do not accept as fact a challenged opinion by one person. O3000 (talk) 00:54, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, the Attorney General is the authoritative opinion in this particular matter, but of the other people who have actually read the full report, who specifically has challenged the Attorney Generals conclusions? Rreagan007 (talk) 01:35, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

JFG Is that a typo, because I did not use the words "we should ignore" in front of "Barr's attempt to exculpate Trump..."? In any case, we have Barr's account and we have pushback from some of Mueller's investigators. There has been extensive coverage of Barr's potential predjudice in the matter[24]. The actually report should resolve many of these open questions, and then it will be time to accept that version of reality.- Mr X 🖋 00:31, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

@MrX: Sorry for putting words in your mouth, I'll strike my preamble to your quote, as I misread "we can't go on and on about [Barr's letter] while ignoring [criticisms of Barr's letter]" into "we should ignore [Barr's letter]". My central point remains: I was shocked by your characterization of Barr's letter as an "attempt to exculpate", which to me sounds like there should be some presumption to inculpate. As I explained, if we can't trust Mueller and his team to have turned every stone in this affair, under Rosenstein's supervision, I wonder who could be an accepted authority. Some people still believe that 9/11 was an inside job or that the CIA had Kennedy assassinated, and some people will forever believe that Trump is an agent of Putin. — JFG ^talk 18:36, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Who specifically on Mueller's team has pushed back and what exactly have they said? Rreagan007 (talk) 00:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

You're asking the wrong person. Perhaps try (844) 698-6397 ☎️- Mr X 🖋 01:13, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Is that a joke? If it is, then haha. I chuckled when I read it. I don't mean to be intruding on discussions that I am not part of, I just thought it was funny.Mgasparin (talk) 06:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

For our purposes, reliable secondary sources are more usable than primary sources. It is the job of the Fourth Estate to tell us what is going on in government. No government is worthy of explicit trust. O3000 (talk) 13:10, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Okay, great. Then who specifically are reliable sources saying are doing this push back? Rreagan007 (talk) 22:28, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Rreagan007, these are confidential sources, as is the norm with officials who speak to the press but don’t want to be outed as whistle-blowers. We don’t know. But they’ve been verified as being people who did indeed work on the investigation. We don’t know any more than that. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 01:06, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

And that's the problem. No one is willing to go on the record and put their reputation on the line for this new conspiracy theory that the DoJ is covering up the actual investigation results. It was allegations from confidential sources that got this whole Russian collusion conspiracy theory started and now more confidential sources are trying to keep it going even after it has been discredited by a 2-year-long investigation that found no evidence to support it. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:09, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

"No one is willing to go on the record and put their reputation on the line..." - That happens.- Mr X 🖋 02:39, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Pretty much as MrX says, sarcasm aside (and apologies for unintentionally associating you with the Soviets' space program by mistyping "MirX" before. Heh.) But yeah, this is normal journalism, and historically, acceptable within even the highest quality journalism. This is an RS that knows their shiz. And the Russian "collusion conspiracy theory" is anything but a theory, per literally hundreds of reliable sources. And this also isn't the only nation in which they've attempted this, vis-a-vis France. There's plenty of documentary and hard evidence proving this isn't a "conspiracy theory", which sort of makes me wonder why you use that wording. It's worthy of a mention. Mr.X's suggestion is one sentence, albeit a slightly run-on sentence (though grammatically correct) which succinctly summarizes it. There's no harm in saying something widely reported by RS, and if the consensus changes, or new information comes to light, we can change it. There's no deadline. But it does seem due per the experts. I'm willing to entertain other opinions, but let's see some reliable sources. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 02:55, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

If you can't prove something with the evidence available, which the Special Counsel and Attorney General have said this can't be proven, then it is by definition just a theory. And as this theory is about a conspiracy, it is by definition a conspiracy theory. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:23, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

That is literally not what a conspiracy theory, though. A conspiracy theory is a theory promoted by third parties about a conspiracy that is speculated without evidence. Robert Mueller constructed an indictment on the basis of a conspiracy between criminal actors. That is not a "conspiracy theory" in the lay sense. It is a legal theory of the case which is involving a conspiracy to commit computer crimes (see: Julian Assange) and a conspiracy against the United States. MrX has it right. PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 22:57, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

The conspiracy theory we are talking about here is the theory that the Trump campaign conspired with the Russian government to steal the 2016 presidential election. That conspiracy theory is unsupported by the evidence after a 2-year investigation by Mueller to try to find evidence of it. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:54, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

If you have a copy of the Mueller report, please post it. Otherwise, please stop telling us what it says. O3000 (talk) 23:57, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

The Attorney General has told us what it says, but I suppose you believe that he's in on the conspiracy too. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:53, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Golan Heights

Trump tweeting that he's going to recognize Israel's sovereignty over the Golan Heights is not lead worthy considering all of the more significant information that is still absent from the lead. I suggest that those wishing to add it make their case here.- Mr X 🖋 20:49, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Recognizing Israel's territorial claim over the Golan seems more important to me than recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital, and that is currently in the lead. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:29, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

That's debatable. I have no objection to removing recognizing Jerusalem and I recall suggesting that after it was first added months ago. - Mr X 🖋 23:24, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

@MrX: I'm not a point to weigh in on its inclusion in the lead, but regarding the statement above that this was about a tweet, doesn't this statement make this a bit more official than that? "THEREFORE, I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim that, the United States recognizes that the Golan Heights are part of the State of Israel."? --HunterM267 ^talk 00:50, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Hunterm267, sure that's more official than his tweet. I still don't think it belongs in the lead, because it's not a significant biographical point. It's not even that significant for his presidency.- Mr X 🖋 01:06, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you on both points, MrX. --HunterM267 ^talk 01:08, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Seems to me there’s smoke, but we need verifiable fire for a lede statement. This would certainly be due if his administration followed this through, but right now it’s more appropriately placed in the body (briefly), and maybe a bit more in the Social Media spin-off. MirX is on the money here. Exclude from the lede for now. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 00:59, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Have to agree, unless it has some other effect than a possible effect on yesterday's election, which we can't know. Besides, where there's smoke there's fire is one of my all time disliked quotes. O3000 (talk) 01:08, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Apologies, O3000, heh. I like it in so far as it reminds me of the lyrics "smoke on the water". I've never been able to parse the two. And yes, it's far too early to forecast opinion on this matter so far as it affects the Knesset elections. It obviously deserves a mention, and in the Trump spin-off I mentioned (being one of the major policy promises made via Twit), but there's no reason for it to be in the lede as of now, at least until anything substantive comes about. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 02:42, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Heh, I like the song, and my GF has been to the casino it was written about. Just never liked the concept that a rumor suggests truth (a concept that I think is imaginary outside of binary logic). Not saying that was your point. O3000 (talk) 00:00, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

The reason I think it is important to add this in is because that part of the lead refers to his initiatives in foreign policy. The lead already includes the section "He has pursued his America First agenda in foreign policy, withdrawing the U.S. from the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade negotiations, the Paris Agreement on climate change, and the Iran nuclear deal. He recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, imposed import tariffs on various goods, triggering a trade war with China, and negotiated with North Korea seeking denuclearization." I don't see how simply adding another major foreign policy initiative to the lead (which is related to the Jerusalem decision already mentioned) in the section already dedicated to listing foreign policy initiatives is necessarily a bad or counterintuitive thing. Andreas11213 (talk) 08:06, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

While the Jerusalem decision had long been awaited, and actually promised by several prior U.S. presidents, the Golan Heights announcement does not carry nearly as much symbolic value. Wait and see whether it has any impact on Middle East politics in general; it's quite unclear as of now. — JFG ^talk 18:23, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I have to agree with JFG here. Don’t get me wrong: it certainly deserves mention. But there’s not been much traffic on this in RS aside from reporting on the statement, and it has yet to be effectuated into any official policy. Such a recognition would require the support of Congress, technically, so far as I know. At this juncture it’s a policy directive and a talking point. As I said, it could certainly be mentioned here, in the “Presidency” article, and the Social Media fork, albeit all briefly—— and in the body. There’s not enough weight yet. A sentence and counterweight (or more correctly, reaction), perhaps? Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 02:11, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Reliability of Mueller Report

I've started a discussion at WP:RSN about the the reliability of the Mueller Report as a secondary source for its investigative findings. R2 (bleep) 18:27, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Good move: a very interesting discussion. — JFG ^talk 08:39, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Omission of crucial detail pertaining to Obstruction of Justice and final verdict

I have not seen this, however, as the Special Counsel's final report states that they did not reach a conclusion regarding obstruction of justice, it does not exonerate the President. However, per DOJ policy, that verdict rests within the hands of the Attorney General; "The Special Counsel's decision to describe the facts of his obstruction investigation without reaching any legal conclusions leaves it to the Attorney General to determine whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime." Attorney General William Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein both concluded that obstruction of justice could not be proven in a court of law. "After reviewing the Special Counsel's final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense."

This fact should not be omitted as if there is still no verdict pertaining to obstruction of justice when there very much so is. The information pertaining to the conclusion of the special counsel should be added to the lead, however, the entire few sentences discussing about the special counsel was removed about a few hours ago as of this typing. There should be some detailing regarding this. We can't go back to a lead identical of January 2019 for example. Needs to be updated. Lastly, Donald_Trump#Investigations does not even mention this fact from the four-page letter. Thoughts?

Aviartm (talk) 20:25, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I assume you are using "verdict" in the casual sense of the word and would not expect us to use similar wording in this article. I'm not sure this particular aspect needs to be explained in this biography, or if it's even the final word on the matter given that Congress seems to think they have a continuing role in the matter. Nevertheless, if you would like tp propose some wording, a couple of sources, and where in the article you think they should be added, we can certainly look at it. - Mr X 🖋 17:21, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that the Mueller report specifically states: "We concluded that Congress has the authority to prohibit a President's corrupt use of his authority in order to protect the integrity of the administration of justice." So Mueller's team is saying CONGRESS should decide, not the Attorney General. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:41, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

MrX Yes, in the casual sense. It would be under Donald_Trump#Investigations before the last sentence of the section. The section mentions "...that Mueller did not reach a conclusion about obstruction of justice. He quoted the special counsel as saying "while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him." Yet, in the very same letter, as previously mentioned, says "The Special Counsel's decision to describe the facts of his obstruction investigation without reaching any legal conclusions leaves it to the Attorney General to determine whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime." This is the law.

Here is how it should look:

Since the special counsel did not reach a conclusion, "The Special Counsel's decision to describe the facts of his obstruction investigation without reaching any legal conclusions leaves it to the Attorney General to determine whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime."Citation1 Citation2 Barr continues by concluding "After reviewing the Special Counsel's final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense."Citation3

And to comment on "Congress has the authority", that is true but the final report mentions it this way: "We therefore examined those issues through the framework established by Supreme Court precedent governing separation-of-powers issues. The Department of Justice and the President's personal counsel have recognized that the President is subject to statutes that prohibit obstruction of justice by bribing a witness or suborning perjury because that conduct does not implicate his constitutional authority. With respect to whether the President can be found to have obstructed justice by exercising his powers under Article II of the Constitution, we concluded that Congress has authority to prohibit a President's corrupt use of his authority in order to protect the integrity of the administration of justice." –––– The final report is just saying that if Congress does wish to reach a conclusion on anything that could constitute impeachment, Congress can use its power of impeachment. Aviartm (talk) 01:42, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

In order for there to be obstruction of justice, there would first need to be a crime to “obstruct.” Since no evidence of a crime exists, I find it hard to allege obstruction of justice occurred; and therefore, such allegations don’t belong in a biography of a living person as it can be considered libel. Tycoon24 (talk) 21:02, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that is complete nonsense. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Actually, that is the position of the Attorney General, that without an underlying crime there can be no criminal obstruction of justice. Legal experts are not in agreement on this point. But the attorney general is the one with the prosecutorial discretion here, so if he says that you can't (or shouldn't) prosecute someone for criminal obstruction of justice without an underlying crime, then his opinion is the one that matters the most. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:00, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

People are jailed for obstruction of justice without an underlying crime all the time, so "legal experts are not in agreement" is just utter bullshit. Just because Barr, a Trump appointee who has been in the job for about 5 minutes, has the same opinion as other Trump fans doesn't make it a thing we should take seriously. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:21, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Prosecutors have discretion in how they choose to interpret and apply criminal statutes. For example, James Comey and Obama's Attorney General chose not to prosecute Hillary Clinton for her illegal email server, because they believed she did not have the specific intent to violate the federal statutes she violated, even though the statute had no requirement for a specific intent in order for it to be a crime. And people have been prosecuted and imprisoned under those statutes for doing much less than Hillary did. You may disagree with how Barr chooses to interpret and apply that criminal statute, but as Attorney General it is his call to make. Barr clearly thinks that it is unjust to prosecute someone for obstruction of justice if they didn't actually commit the underlying crime that was being investigated, and there is some logic to that. It's like in football with a pass interference call. If the ball was actually caught or it was uncatchable, then there can be no pass interference. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:21, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

It is my understanding that obstruction of justice not only requires an underlying crime to obstruct, but -also- the obstructive actions must show criminal intent beyond a reasonable doubt. So, the fact that Pres. Trump is well-known for his short temper should actually be regarded in his favor, since (e.g.) his requests to Jeff Sessions to un-recuse himself from the investigation, his tweets, etc. simply reflect his usual demeanor and he didn't ultimately take any of the actions that would've shown a special interest in shutting down the investigation (removing Mueller, for example, which technically was within his power). "Intent" is a key element to an obstruction of justice charge. I don't think that a series of angry tweets meet that standard, especially considering that the man didn't even resort to using the legally available options to block the investigation that were at his disposal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.36.19.208 (talk) 05:48, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

""On June 17, 2017, the President called McGahn at home and directed him to call the Acting Attorney General and say that the Special Counsel had conflicts of interest and must be removed. McGahn did not carry out the direction, however, deciding that he would resign rather than trigger what he regarded as a potential Saturday Night Massacre.""
— [25]

- Mr X 🖋 13:53, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Right. So Trump listened to the advice of the White House lawyer, and just expressed his frustration on Twitter. Not criminal; actually listening to White House counsel is exactly what we should expect of any president. — JFG ^talk 10:56, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

No collusion in Wikipedia's voice

I don't believe that we can add this in Wikipedia's voice:

The investigation found that there was no coordination or collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government.

I have not seen a single source, let alone multiple sources, state this as a fact.- Mr X 🖋 15:57, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

From what I have seen it has always been Barr states such and such for that one. Might be a bit different in the next few days with the reports release. PackMecEng (talk) 16:05, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

It's inconsistent with sourced content in the body.

Barr wrote that the special counsel "did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its effort to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election"

That's a direct quote from Barr and the nation's head lawyer (1) likely understands the enormous difference between "did not find" and "found that there was no", and (2) surely chose his words very carefully. Anyway, Barr's interpretation will not be the last word for our purposes. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:17, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree, we shouldn't state that in Wikipedia's voice. The claim of "no collusion" is simply the Trump camp's own claim. What Mueller found was that

Russia interfered in the election in an effort to undermine Clinton
The Trump campaign had extensive contact with Russia, although he didn't find evidence that Trump associates were directly involved in the Russian interference efforts[26]

Clearly the picture is somewhat more nuanced than Trump's "no collusion" claims, and the wording should reflect that. --Tataral (talk) 16:21, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree, and I doubt that the press will coalesce around a single, clear view of the matter. That lack of certainty has to be reflected in the article.- Mr X 🖋 16:53, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

So here was my latest attempt at summarizing the findings of the report: "The Special Council Investigation found multiple connections between Trump campaign officials and Russia, but did not find any coordination or conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russian government that constituted a crime." And here is the current New York Times headline: "Muller Found 'Numerous' Russia Contacts but Evidence of Crime Was 'Not Sufficient'".[27] Rreagan007 (talk) 17:36, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Er... that completely omits the extremely important fact that Mueller recommended that Congress should decide whether or not to do something about Trump's obstruction of justice, which his team were unable to rule out. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:44, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Obstruction of justice would have to be a separate sentence. Let's focus on one thing at a time. Just in regards to conspiracy and coordination, aka "collusion", I think my sentence accurately reflects the NY Times position. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:11, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't. "...but did not find any coordination or conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russian government that constituted a crime" is not the same as "Evidence of Crime Was 'Not Sufficient'". In other words, did not find any != insufficient - Mr X 🖋 18:19, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Extended discussion between 2 editors ~Awilley (talk) 12:39, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

@Rreagan007: Absolutely not. Both "collusion" (which isn't actually a thing, but rather a thing Trump wanted us all to focus on) and "obstruction" should be treated together. If we focus only on the "collusion" (which as I said, is the intention of the Trump people) we are ignoring the truly shocking part that shows Trump and his people tried to cover it up. Such a treatment would be wholly irresponsible. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:11, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

@Scjessey: Obstruction of justice in this case is very much in the eye of the beholder. What one person can view as obstruction, someone else can view as an innocent man using his Constitutionally protected freedom of speech to defend himself from false accusations, or exercising his Constitutional powers of office. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:49, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Bwaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaahaaaaaaahaaaaaaa! That's just hilarious. False accusations? LOL! -- Scjessey (talk) 21:32, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

The accusation that Trump colluded with Russia and is in some way a Russian agent certainly seems to be false given that a 2-year investigation was unable to find any evidence to support that accusation. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:24, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Did he really recommend that? I haven't read the full report, only looked at certain parts and the conclusions, and I did not see anything recommending that Congress decide this. Cosmic Sans (talk) 17:52, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

This is the reports final conclusion regarding obstruction of justice: "Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President's conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, 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. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him." Rreagan007 (talk) 18:16, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

@Cosmic Sans: Let me repeat what I quoted from the Mueller report in the section above: "We concluded that Congress has the authority to prohibit a President's corrupt use of his authority in order to protect the integrity of the administration of justice." (my use of bold) -- Scjessey (talk) 19:11, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

That's not the same as a recommendation, it's merely a statement of fact. If I say that a police officer could investigate that shady house down the street, I'm not necessarily recommending that they do. Cosmic Sans (talk) 20:30, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

It has only been a few hours. Let's see what Congress decides to do and or say after this is fully digested.--MONGO (talk) 18:54, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Congress has responded by demanding the full, unredacted report, but I agree we should take a beat or two for all this to be fully digested. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:12, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

We can definitely say in wiki-voice that there was no collusion/conspiracy and that Trump is exonerated, according to the investigation, its report and the DOJ. The only relevant persons here are Mueller and Barr. From The Atlantic, "Barr, however, waved off the suggestion that Mueller was tossing the question to lawmakers in his press conference. “Special Counsel Mueller did not indicate that his purpose was to leave the decision to Congress,” the attorney general told reporters. “I hope that was not his view, since we don’t convene grand juries and conduct criminal investigations for that purpose.”" [28] (emphasis mine) wumbolo ^^^ 19:23, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

No we can't. The report and the Barr letter refute a substantial portion of your proposed wording. Barr is not a reliable source, and sources have extensively reported his lack of neutrality with respect to the administration. Haven't we discussed this already?- Mr X 🖋 20:00, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

If we were using language as normally understood, such as explained in "Collusion, obstruction of justice, redactions: How the Mueller report uses these legal terms", we would say no collusion was found. However Mueller said he did not address the issue of collusion since it was not an offense under U.S. federal law and some people are implying that collusion and conspiracy are somehow different. So I would stick with the wording in the report. TFD (talk) 22:51, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

There is no collusion. The attorney general has publicly said that. I think there is no problem to make it in ~~Wiki voice or~~ the attorney general voice ~~it's now a fact.~~--SharabSalam (talk) 23:50, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Please read the rest of the discussion. We are well past that. - Mr X 🖋 00:39, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Alright I didn't know that now there are sources who question the attorney general neutrality. However I don't agree that Barr is an unreliable source just because CNN and democratic media are saying he is biased doesn't mean he is really biased because these sources are actually well-known to be biased against Trump. It should be in the attorney general voice not in Wiki voice.--SharabSalam (talk) 01:01, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

We are not going to parrot Barr's spin in Wikipedia's voice, no matter how reliable you may think he is. - Mr X 🖋 13:47, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Not helpful ~Awilley (talk) 12:44, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I'm okay with saying something along the lines of "Trump appointed known sycophant William Barr to Attorney General, whereupon Barr promptly spun the Mueller report to make it sound as if Trump was an innocent babe, despite the fact he fought desperately to keep the report that 'totally vindicated' him a secret."

-- Scjessey (talk) 13:26, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

“I'm okay with saying something along the lines of ‘Trump appointed known sycophant William Barr…’” You’re okay with that? Really? Your animus and resulting bias against Trump is so unapologetically exhibited that, although you at least evidence some semblance of integrity in hardly concealing such, you lack the integrity to recuse yourself from editing on all things Trump-related as I have regarding any article on the Israel/Palestine conflict because of my strident support of one of those sides. I appeal to all editors here who are able to put aside one’s personal political beliefs in an attempt to build strong, objective Wikipedia articles for the benefit of the public, to closely scrutinize any edit this editor makes regarding politics, especially any related to President Trump, and any editor who so openly exhibits political bias in such matters regardless of the ideology exhibited.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 17:12, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

@HistoryBuff14: Did you not see the

emoji at the end of my comment, indicating it was tongue-in-cheek and not to be taken seriously? I'd be delighted to have my edits closely scrutinized, and it will be plain for all to see that I am scrupulously neutral. Meanwhile, perhaps you should go and read WP:NPA before you post this kind of crap again? -- Scjessey (talk) 12:15, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

We should objectively state Barr's presentation of the report and then objectively state some criticism thereof.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 17:32, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. We should reflect what reliable sources say about the report itself, irrespective of Barr's COI spin.- Mr X 🖋 19:42, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Some editors here seem to hate Barr, but that's not a concern here. Pretty much all sources cite Barr as an authority. Yes they then say that they know better, but if CNN likes much CNN and some Barr, and MSNBC likes much MSNBC and some Barr, you add all of these together, and you get Barr as a de facto authority. wumbolo ^^^ 14:09, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

He is the Attorney General, which makes him the de jure authority. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:10, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

If the word of the Attorney-General was the voice of God, there would be no need for trials. I agree that as collusion is normally defined, that the report shows none occurred. However, some writers in reliable sources say that these definitions are wrong. There can be collusion between people who have no contact with each other and aren't even aware of one another. Nor does it require anyone to say, do or even think anything. Nor can it be disproved.

The best way to handle this is to directly quote people intext.

TFD (talk) 18:00, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I’m sitting here literally shaking my head at perhaps the most bizarre comment I have ever read from an apparently intelligent person:

"There can be collusion between people who have no contact with each other and aren't even aware of one another. Nor does it require anyone to say, do or even think anything. Nor can it be disproved.”

What in the Name of God does that mean?

Here is a dictionary definition of collusion:

"Secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.”

Collusion doesn’t require: “…anyone to say, do or even think anything.”? What does it require then? Do the ones who collude have to be alive?

As to: “Nor can it be disproved,” I don’t even understand what that means. It sounds like a Zen koan. You didn't take part in a conspiracy to kill JFK because you weren't born until twenty years after the event? That wouldn't absolve you of collusion?HistoryBuff14 (talk) 18:30, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I think the problems with the obstruction of justice piece of this puzzle are pretty evident from this talk page. There are many novel theories of obstruction of justice that some people are trying to use against Trump, such as his public tweets defending himself being obstruction of justice, or his public statements and speeches defending himself being obstruction of justice. To me (and other people, such as our Attorney General) that just seems ridiculous on its face, and doesn't seem to be within the spirit of the law regarding obstruction of justice. If exercising your Constitutional right to freedom of speech to publicly defending yourself against false (unproven) charges while the mass media is continually attacking you in the court of public opinion is now considered criminal obstruction of justice, then we have lost the concept of what true justice actually is. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:13, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't know what collusion means as defined by writers who claim the report confirms collusion. But a lot of writers say that. TFD (talk) 19:20, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, I don't know what those writers mean by "collusion" either, but the report was very clear that there was no criminal conspiracy or coordination. So, if there was "collusion", it would have had to have been non-coordinated, legal collusion. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:50, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

See "Of course Trump's campaign colluded with Russia. But unfortunately that's not a crime" in the Guardian "Mueller Redactions Raise Questions About Stone, Trump, and the “No Collusion” Claim" in Mother Jones, "Yes, Collusion" in the New Republic and there are many other articles in reliable sources saying that the report confims collusion. While none of that may make sense to you or me, I don't think per weight and synthesis that we can determine who is right. TFD (talk) 20:22, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Collusion is another word for conspiracy. You cannot have unconscious collusion.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:42, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Usually op-eds aren't reliable sources. wumbolo ^^^ 20:53, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I read the Guardian article, and the top headline is "Of course Trump's campaign colluded with Russia. But unfortunately that's not a crime", and then the subheadline is "Without an agreement about election interference, there’s no conspiracy but plenty of what you might call collusion". But the dictionary defines "collusion" as "a secret agreement, especially for fraudulent or treacherous purposes; conspiracy"[29] So the writer seems to be using the word "collusion" in some way other than its general English definition. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:54, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

MrX There are plenty of citations that corroborate the statement but wouldn't WP:LEADCITE come in violation as the entire lead of Donald Trump does not have a single citation? Since I do not want to bring in tons of citations here to corroborate the statement, I will use the final report per excerpt as follows:

"In sum, the investigation established multiple links between Trump Campaign officials and individuals tied to the Russian government. Those links included Russian offers of assistance to the Campaign. In some instances, the Campaign was receptive to the offer, while in other instances the Campaign officials shied away. Ultimately, the investigation did not establish that the Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities." Also, per Mandruss's comments as well about Barr's conclusions. Source: vol. I, p. 173 - https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf Aviartm (talk) 08:13, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Edit: Why can't I access Donald Trump's article history logs? Keeps saying "no input file selected." Aviartm (talk) 08:17, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

@Aviartm: That's a temporary Wikipedia server glitch, not related to this particular article. — JFG ^talk 08:28, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

JFG Yeah, I figured. However, when I tried other pages, such as Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, they loaded their history logs. Aviartm (talk) 08:58, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Lead neutrality

Re:[30][31] ―Mandruss ☎ 11:32, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

User:JFG you restored the last paragraph. Do you think it is a neutral summary of the Trump presidency? zzz (talk) 11:27, 20 April 2019 (UTC) 12:10, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it's a neutral summary of the most salient actions undertaken by Trump during his presidency. It is not a summary of positive or negative opinions about such actions, and that would have no place in the lead. — JFG ^talk 12:03, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Strawpoll: Remove the last paragraph

Support It is not a neutral summary of Trump's presidency. It is an embarrassment for Wikipedia to be pretending that it is. It is a long way from being a neutral summary of anything. There is no reason for it to remain. zzz (talk) 13:03, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Hell, I'll Support that simply because of my long-standing feeling that 64% of the lead is far too much space to devote to at most 6% of this life-to-date. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:16, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Oppose – This is utterly frivolous. Obviously the article about the current U.S. president should describe what said president has done during his presidency. Instead of making blanket accusations of "embarrassment", perhaps zzz could suggest actual changes that would make this paragraph more neutral in their opinion, and then we could have a proper debate among editors on the merits of those suggestions. — JFG ^talk 13:29, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps you could not just immediately resort to WP:NPA? zzz (talk) 13:34, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not attacking you; sorry if my comment gave you this impression. — JFG ^talk 13:51, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Sure, with little effort we could kick it up to 80% making it more neutral. Or, we could decide that the need for this level of detail in the lead isn't so "obvious" after all. I'd favor the latter, "obviously". ―Mandruss ☎ 13:39, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

If you think the lead needs trimming, we could start by removing trivia such as He became the oldest and wealthiest person ever to assume the presidency, the first without prior military or government service, and the fifth to have won the election despite having lost the popular vote. That is a lot less informative to readers than the president's policies. — JFG ^talk 13:57, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

That would reduce it to 61% from 64%, hardly addressing my concern. This is the top-level biography about an entire life and we have a separate article about his presidency. Actually we have a top-level article about his presidency and several sub-articles about his presidency. I'm not suggesting we should get down to 6%, only that 64% is way out of proportion, as I said. The only way to get down to a reasonable proportion is to reduce the detail level. What's needed is a paradigm shift, not surgical trimming. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:55, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Oppose, however would support a rewording.--MONGO (talk) 13:54, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Everyone would support a rewording of everything. But you are saying that this is basically a neutral summary of the Trump presidency, yes? zzz (talk) 14:35, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Oddly, I have this page watched so no need to pipe my username. The section should not be blanked but could be trimmed and reworded. It has omitted a few items and given details that might not be lead worthy.--MONGO (talk) 14:43, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

That was really worth stating, was it? zzz (talk) 14:47, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Your removal of an entire section with edit summary as you did was unacceptable to me. I am not opposed to a trimming or rewording but not supporting the blanking an entire section.--MONGO (talk) 14:54, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

"entire section" - paragraph; "with edit summary" - yes, is that a problem? Can someone just get rid of it, please? It's like the Barr report of the Trump presidency. zzz (talk) 16:27, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Oppose. I agree with JFG that the current president's lead section should summarize his accomplishments as president. I would note that Obama's lead section is very similarly structured, and it's a featured-class article. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:15, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

So, you do think it is a neutral summary of Trump's presidency? zzz (talk) 17:18, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

It looks pretty neutral to me. It would be helpful if you could give specific examples of exactly what you don't think is neutral about it. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:24, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

For a random example, What's the first thing that comes to mind that Trump concentrates his energies on more than anything else? Probably the wall. CTRL+F "wall": no mention. Perhaps just a trivial example but it shows how there was no effort made to even roughly correspond with reality. The paragraph as written is a desperate attempt to paint Trump's presidency in the most flattering light possible. zzz (talk) 17:45, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

So you want us to add something like "Trump failed to secure funding for a border wall"? I'd be fine with adding something like that. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:47, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

First, I want you to get rid of the paragraph that forms part of Trump's re-election campaign. Frankly, I find it quite concerning that it was there to begin with. zzz (talk) 17:52, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Do you have the same problems with the lead section of Obama's article listing his accomplishments as president? Rreagan007 (talk) 17:59, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I haven't read that article. zzz (talk) 18:02, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Okay well here you go: Barack Obama. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:04, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Oppose, but support rewriting In my views, the current paragraph needs to be rewritten, but not removed entirely. Some additional sources would be a great addition to the section, and I also think there is a bit too much repetition, as I spotted a lot of sentences beginning with "He". --Kingerikthesecond (talk) 17:21, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Oppose Although Trump was a celebrity before his election, his main notability is his presidency, so what he actually did or did not do in that office is important. I would add that he failed to repeal and replace Obamacare, despite having a Republican majority. TFD (talk) 21:41, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Wharton School

It seems like in every other Wikipedia article for people who have Wharton undergraduate degrees, the University of Pennsylvania is listed in the Education section. (See the article for Rod Rosenstein for example.) It makes no sense to list the specific undergraduate school there. For Rex Tillerson for example, University of Texas is listed rather than the Cockrell School of Engineering.

Even for people like Supreme Court justices who went to graduate schools, Harvard University or Yale University is listed rather than Harvard Law School or Yale Law School.

Is there any reason for Trump, the Wharton School, only one undergraduate school is listed instead of the University of Pennsylvania? This seems inconsistent with every other Wikipedia bio page. Can we change it to University of Pennsylvania? Marquis de Faux (talk) 04:31, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

For previous related discussions, see Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 56#Universities in infobox and Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 58#Reopening discussion about 'Universities in infobox' (#Current consensus 18). However, as far as I can tell neither focused on the school vs university. --DannyS712 (talk) 04:41, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

It seems like in every other Wikipedia article for people who have Wharton undergraduate degrees, the University of Pennsylvania is listed in the Education section. For examples disproving that perception, see Jack Abraham — Edward Lametek Adamu — T. Coleman Andrews Jr. — Dave Asprey. That's just the A's and I shouldn't need to go through the entire alphabet to make the point. There will never be wide agreement on how this should be treated, so site-wide consistency is not going to be a worthwhile pursuit. From a reader perspective, there is little practical need for site-wide consistency on that. We have a long-standing consensus for this article at #Current consensus item 18, and, unless you have better arguments than "it makes no sense" and "these cherry-picked articles do it differently", I think this is better left alone.

DannyS712, see Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 56#Show UPenn, Wharton, both, or combined as one link? (and note that the "UPenn" option, which is what the OP proposes, received zero support there). ―Mandruss ☎ 12:16, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

You can read through the lengthy arguments. I think though that what is important is that most people would say he went to Wharton. TFD (talk) 22:42, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

"Relationship with the press" section

I changed "Relationship with the press" to "Relationship with the media" to match the further information link of that section:

but it was reverted. I think "media" is probably the better term here, since it seems to be the more modern term and "press" seems more archaic, though both are still regularly used. Regardless, we should be consistent, so either this section heading should be changed to "media" or the one over on the Presidency article should be changed to "press". Rreagan007 (talk) 17:06, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I prefer 'press' because it's more specific, and carries an encyclopedic tone. "The media" is a more casual term, and can be interpreted broader that we intend in this article. For example, The Apprentice was part of the media, yet Trump's relationship with that media was favorable until they booted him.- Mr X 🖋 17:41, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

"Press" does seem to be somewhat specific of a reference to the news media as opposed to the entertainment media. Both of these sections seem to be mainly focused around the news media, so either "press" or "news media" would probably work. I'm fine with either, but as I said the section headings should be consistent across both articles. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:57, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

"Press" makes more sense, and the section heading in Presidency of Donald Trump should be changed to match. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:29, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

"Press" is obviously kosher here. Call a spade a spade. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 22:38, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

This change has been made in both places. The next question is whether this article's other 10+ occurrences of "media" that really mean "press" should also be changed. Probably not that important, and #Current consensus #35 would have be re-consensused, but I just thought I'd point that out. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:43, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

"Press" and "news media" or "media" are more-or-less interchangeable terms. I don't think changing every instance of "media" to "press" in really necessary, and would probably make the article sound repetitive. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:09, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Archiving

Given the cumulative effect of more recent actions in the Trump presidency, with slower policy changes and unfolding coverage (and that recent events haven't been a constant barrage of Tweets and scandals like it was a few months ago), perhaps we should extend the archiving past seven days. That's a ridiculously short time for a talk page discussion. I reverted a new editors reversion and then reversal of their edit to Sigmabot because I thought it was in error. I understand why a week might have been more appropriate before when coverage was based on the 24 hour news cycle and their reacting to Trump's statements, but it seems to be cutting off relevant discussions now. Can we extend the archiving parameters? Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 03:22, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

That parameter is not the ~~length~~ duration of the discussion but rather the amount of time a thread must be idle before it can be archived. There is no limit on the ~~length~~ duration of a discussion if it continues to receive new comments. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:28, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm well aware. That's why I mentioned the word "days". And various measurements of time throughout. I was asking if it was prudent to extend it beyond seven. It sort of seems like you just read part of the first sentence, and then the last. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 08:10, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

That's why I mentioned the word "days". Right, "days" was my intent. I edited my comment since it may have been unclear. I see no need for more than 7 days idle time before archival, but that may be appropriate after Trump leaves office and this page becomes less active. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:20, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

It's true that the pace of discussion has slowed down considerably, even with the barrage of recent news about the Mueller report. I'll switch to 14 days and we'll see how well that works. Stale threads can still be archived manually. — JFG ^talk 16:48, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

No can do without consensus, per #Current consensus item 13. And we never archive stale threads manually, we only archive closed threads manually (after 24 hours) per that same consensus item. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:57, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the reminder. Let's start a poll then. (I think a formal 30-day RfC would be overkill.) — JFG ^talk 17:37, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Poll on archiving delay

Should the automatic archiving delay be extended from 7 days to 14 days? — JFG ^talk 17:37, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes – Volume of discussion has diminished significantly since the 7-day rule was implemented back in January 2017. — JFG ^talk 17:37, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
No unless someone can point to a few discussions that have been auto-archived prematurely (excluding RfCs where nobody thought to add a {{DNAU}}) (I don't recall any). Otherwise, it's a solution without a problem. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:45, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
No - 7 days is perfectly fine. If a thread on this busy talk page hasn't been added to for more than 7 days, it is stale. The only possible exception would be RfCs, and these can easily be prevented from being archived. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:38, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
No I agree with Mandruss. Also, this talk page is a very busy place. Extending the delay will cause old discussions to quickly pile up, causing the talk page to become far too long. Mgasparin (talk) 23:53, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes. Perhaps that's not surprising given that I was the original proposer, but I cast this !vote with a caveat: We don't need to use one of the seven day increment parameters. That's just boilerplate. I'd suggest just giving discussions a few more days than seven, as people are busy with things in their "real lives", and there's no deadline for discussion... Though it's always a bit iffy reviving conversations from the archives, as we all know. To that end, I'd amend this to TEN days, though I'm okay with any change that allows for more interested editors to weigh in, especially those who may not frequent this topic area. (NOTE: I'll note that there's a bit more traffic since the Mueller Report was released, but I still think we do ourselves a disservice to bury salient discussions; I'd argue that the fact that there are a few simultaneous discussion threads may be all the more reason for the allowance of more time). Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 17:37, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
A good way to bury salient discussions: Keep discussions on this page longer than experience shows is needed, thereby significantly increasing the size of the table of contents. Again, don't fix what ain't broke, don't solve problems that haven't occurred. Besides, in the extremely rare case that someone wants to continue a recently-archived discussion, they don't have to restore it from archive. They can simply start a new thread and link to the archived one. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:54, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
No need to be passive-aggressive. There's no harm in allowing more opportunity for discussion. It's not like I have an ulterior motive here. I just noted the rapidity with which some conversations would be archived, and how that's at least partially a result of what regular editors fixate on because it's contentious per POV. I feel like some legitimate conversations get buried because it's not "high traffic". Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 07:56, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Mueller report summary in the headline as well as a more indepth description of Mr. Mueller's findings in the Special Counsel section of the article

I would like to propose that we include a small paragraph in the summary of the article that includes reference to Bob Mueller's investigation and findings, as well as a more indepth description of what those findings actually were in the corresponding section of the article. It's already been made apparent that Bill Barr's summary was not an adequate reflection of what the Special Council determined - so I would propose that a few key facts be included.

● Mueller rejects the argument that the president is shielded from obstruction laws.

●Trump, when told of appointment of special counsel Mueller, said: “This is the end of my presidency.”

● “Substantial evidence” supports Comey over Trump in account of Flynn meeting.

●Trump campaign attempted to obtain Hillary Clinton’s private emails.

● Campaign expected to benefit from stolen information released by the Russians.

● Mueller probe spawned 14 other investigations, including two unidentified cases that remain ongoing.

● Putin stepped up outreach to Trump after election.

● Special counsel team concluded Trump intended to obstruct probe in tweeting support for Manafort.

● Mueller appears to kick obstruction question to Congress.

These are all incredibly crucial facts to the investigation that Barr's summary does not reflect - therefore not including any reference to them at all given that these were the findings of special council seems concerning. I'd like to request a poll be done to add reference to these findings. 50.69.20.91 (talk) 17:50, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't support this idea. An entire paragraph devoted to the Mueller Report, even a short one, would be grossly undue in my view. And I believe it would be literally impossible to cram all of that info into a short paragraph anyway, neutrality issues aside. R2 (bleep) 23:03, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Probably the wrong article. Try Presidency_of_Donald_Trump. Or perhaps someone can suggest another of the many. O3000 (talk) 23:50, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
@R2 Neutrality issues? These are the findings - they should be added to the article. It wouldn't take up that much additional space either so I don't see the merit in that argument, either. Reference to Mr. Mueller determining that Trump actively tried to derail the investigation wouldn't be a difficult task. @Objective3000 I don't see why more indepth reference to the report can't be on both pages? The report is relevant to both. 50.69.20.91 (talk) 03:46, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Oppose. At most, LEAD would have either nothing or a line mentioning Special Counsel Investigation happened at most, not a whole para in LEAD and especially not an OR list. And you’re misstating “determined” ... Mueller reported on the investigation, but Barr is by regulation who makes final DOJ determinations. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:45, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
- Comment. Mark, with all due respect, "nothing" in the lede would be just as inappropriate, though I agree generally with your reasoning (see my '!vote' below). Just as it was an important part of Clinton's biography, we need to mention it. And the Special Counsel is independent of anything the DOJ does- it's only recently that the changed the way such investigations are handled in that the DOJ has any role whatsoever, and it's still essentially advisory. The only difference in that now Barr could have pursued an indictment, if he had chosen to do so. Special Counsel reports are historically compiled for the benefit of Congress, not the DOJ. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 17:26, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Oppose The article is about Trump, not Mueller. I note the lead to Bill Clinton's article has only one sentence about the accusations made against him and does not even mention the special prosecutor, despite the fact the prosecutor made specific accusations of criminality against him (although he was acquitted in impeachment). TFD (talk) 05:22, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
- Comment. I split this from my comment above, as it was more appropriately addressed to you, and I felt it pertinent to comment a bit further there. TFD, while I agree generally, I'd argue that in contrast it should perhaps be given a bit more weight here, if only because Clinton's presidency was rather more eventful (i.e., Camp David Summit and Gaza Disengagement), and that various misconduct allegations have hung over Trump's head since long before he even became President. In this way, it's more analogous to the Nixon biography (though that's still "apples and oranges", and not a good comparison). However, anything more than a brief mention, I agree, would be wildly inappropriate in this article. The problem with the Clinton comparison is that he had two terms, and it's been a couple decades. He has the benefit of time, the determination of history as to how the investigation was later viewed, and several years of other biographical events thereafter. With Trump, we're reporting on current events. It doesn't diminish the weight, but this article will certainly look different twenty years from now, no matter what happens. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 17:11, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
  - Since the Meuller report has just been released, we don't know what lasting historical significance it will have. Right now though, the main points that have received attention is that there is no evidence of conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia, which is what Mueller was investigating. Incidentally, accusations of womanizing against Clinton preceded his presidency. Remember Gennifer Flowers? It comes down to different perspectives. If you hate the Clintons, then the bimbo eruptions take on huge significance. If you believe that Trump is a Russian agent, then you concentrate on that. Nixon btw did far more in office than Clinton did, including normalizing relations with the USSR and China, prosecuting the war in Vietnam, dropping the gold standard, and bringing in wage and price controls. His previous record as congressman, senator, vice president and a leading Republican Party were far more high profile than Clinton's terms as AG and Governor. TFD (talk) 19:12, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
I would support a sentence about Mueller in the lead.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:15, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
As Mandruss said in the above section #Mueller report in the lead, we should first update the section dedicated to the Mueller probe in the article body, and then start a discussion about what, if anything, should be added to the lead section. My personal take is that a short summary of the probe is WP:DUE for the lead; this investigation has been the most discussed event of Trump's presidency so far, and we can't sweep it under the rug just because its findings are not as dramatic as expected. (Remember "Mueller time"?) — JFG ^talk 08:24, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Conditional Oppose, per much of what's already been said here. An edit with as much detail as you're suggesting is both inappropriate and undue in the lede of straight biography article. I'm pretty much in agreement with what JFG said. The Mueller section in the body needs to be expanded, and a short synopsis-style summary of the probe no longer than a couple of sentences would then be appropriate in the lead, as the Special Counsel Investigation is arguably the most notable aspect of his presidency. And his presidency is now probably what's most notable in his biography. But a blow-by-blow description that you're suggesting is over the top. A whole huge section in the lead of the biography is most certainly UNDUE. As Objective3000 said, this edit request would be more appropriate and salient at the Presidency of Donald Trump article, which is an article about his presidency, and not about the man. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 17:11, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Not appropriate for this article - We can't cram all aspects of the Trump presidency into this article with that level of detail. This kind of thing is much better suited for Presidency_of_Donald_Trump or Special_Counsel_investigation_(2017–2019). Cosmic Sans (talk) 17:31, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Mueller report in the lead

I love how the last paragraph was removed despite the fact that the vote was a tie. Please restore it, and make sure to reflect the recently released Mueller report because now that it's been established without a shadow of a doubt that Trump attempted to obstruct justice, it would be irresponsible for a summary of his presidency to not reflect that. 50.69.26.77 (talk) 15:13, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

It has already been restored.[32] ―Mandruss ☎ 15:16, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

My mistake - I got a little confused and thought this discussion pertained to mention of the Mueller investigation. Why was that removed? it seems important to include at least a reference to it, and what Mueller was able to find regarding Trump's conduct in regards to the investigation 50.69.26.77 (talk) 15:18, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to this removal. See that edit summary for the rationale. Since this is completely off-topic here, I'm making it a separate thread. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:22, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't particularly find that rationale sufficient to warrant leaving such a crucial moment in the Trump presidency to be left out. Especially considering this President has now been discovered to have openly obstructed justice and attempted to interfere with an ongoing investigation according to Bob Mueller, it must be reflected in the summary. 50.69.20.91 (talk) 14:36, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I disagree, obviously. Fundamentals of Wikipedia editing (NOTNEWS, no deadline, lead summarizes body, etc.) always trump editors' desire to get the "truth" about Trump into the lead of this article, where it will enjoy maximum visibility, NOW. I'm always skeptical of editors claiming urgency to include content. Others may differ, and I defer to consensus, but as of now yours is the only objection to an edit made five days ago. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:07, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Again - if that were the case then why include mentions of Watergate into Nixon's page? Because it was a very significant moment that defined his presidency. This is too important to leave out - and if you disagree, that's fine - but there should be a poll. Any harm in that or is it really important to you not to have the obstruction of justice mentioned in the headline?

Edit: It wouldn't take a particularly long paragraph either. I just feel it's relevant to note that there was an investigation and Bob Mueller had determined that Trump, during the course of the probe - attempted to interfere with the investigation but could not confirm that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians either. I would argue that it's important to note it especially considering the misinformation floating around about the investigation, this would allow readers unfamiliar with the report's findings to easily access the basic summary of it, which is honestly what a summary page is intended for in the first place - to summarize the facts, and as it stands these facts are incredibly important. 50.69.20.91 (talk) 17:43, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

You seem intelligent enough. I'm having trouble understanding why you're having so much trouble understanding me. The edit summary and my comments have been about process, not content. I don't care a whit if the content gets into the lead—that is, aside from my opinion that the lead devotes too much space to his presidency, which has gained no traction—what I care about is that it gets done in the right way, and with no sense of urgency (this is an encyclopedia, not a news summary service). Seven days have now passed, so my "Step 1" is at least minimally complete and I'm willing to concede the second week. Step 2: Decide what related content to include in the body, at the end of Donald Trump#Special Counsel investigation. This must come before lead content because lead summarizes body—we have to know what we're summarizing before we can decide how to summarize it. That section currently ends at: "On April 18, 2019, a redacted version of the final Mueller Report was released to the public." and it obviously needs more. So we can get started on Step 2, and I generally leave that kind of thing to others who are better at it. If you feel up to it, feel free to start discussion about that, preferably separately. Once we have body content that is somewhat stable, we can move on to Step 3: what, if anything, to put in the lead. I wouldn't be at all surprised or upset if it took us 4–6 more weeks to complete the process. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:51, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

My mistake, I now see your new thread attempting to combine steps 2 and 3. Had I known you weren't waiting for a response, I wouldn't have spent 30 minutes of my time writing one. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:21, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I seems extreme not to mention the Mueller report in any form in the lead. I can't really see a coherent explanation on the Talk pages. I don't know where User:Mandruss came up with the 3 Step approach. We routinely mention topics in the lead while still working on the body. In fact, creating an article would be impossible otherwise! The weeks are going by. I don't see any process underway. It is absurd that the Mueller investigation was mentioned in the lead before the report was release and now it isn't.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:12, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't see any process underway. There's this, which you saw four days ago.[33] ―Mandruss ☎ 13:50, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

That discussion seems to be mostly about having a paragraph on Mueller in the lead. I don't see a consensus against a mere mention.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:28, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

AFAIK the section heading and the opening comment define what it's about. Both refer to body as well as lead. So yes, there is a process underway and there is no urgency per above, although it may well take longer in the long run because of the decision to combine body and lead into one discussion. We can have fast or good, but not both. I'll be a strong opponent of any lead content that does not summarize related body content. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:35, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I can't see a problem with having an sentence in the interim.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:52, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Then we'll have to agree to disagree. Lead summarizes body, always. Readers are going to be reading the article in the interim. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:10, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes,readers are going to be reading the article in the interim. Lead summarizes body, always. So put Mueller in the lead in the interim.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:19, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

[Zapotosky-190227-1] Zapotosky, Matt; Demirjian, Karoun; Helderman, Rosalind S. (February 27, 2019). "Michael Cohen's testimony: Trump's former personal lawyer alleges the president knew in advance of WikiLeaks plan". The Washington Post. Retrieved February 27, 2019.

[Daub-190227-2] Daub, Travis (February 27, 2019). "Read Michael Cohen's full prepared testimony on Trump's Russia plans, WikiLeaks email dump". PBS. Retrieved February 27, 2019.

[3] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ilhan_Omar&diff=887800859&oldid=883692557

[4] ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMXXOtCo8FQ

[5] ttps://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/09/15/yes_hillary_the_media_did_help_trump_win_so_did_you_135011.html

[1]

[2]

[1]

[1]

[1]

Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 96

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 February 2019

Rossano Rubicondi

The Trump hearing

Hush payments

Wikilink to President article or Presidency article

Is it time for a “Donald Trump-inspired mass violence” spinout article?

RfC: Should the article include material about Michael Cohen's testimony that Trump knew about Roger Stone's communications with WikiLeaks?

Wrestlemania 23

Short description

One-word twitter-twatter "VETO" and precendent, "AIPAC"

Talk:Donald Trump/Current consensus

Citations in lede

Attorney general: The Mueller report clears Trump campaign of collusion with Russia

Troubling levels of liberal bias in this article.

Final paragraph of lead section

Special counsel?

This is not POV or SYNTH

How to detail the new findings presented by Attorney General William Barr to Congress?

Trump has repeatedly denied accusations of collusion and obstruction of justice

This line is stupid

Description of Barr "synopsis" needs a source

Regarding the decision not to include the 19 sexual misconduct allegations in the lead because they're "not proven"

"Investigations — Special counsel"

RfC on Spygate

Impeachment efforts

Updates needed

Golan Heights

Reliability of Mueller Report

Omission of crucial detail pertaining to Obstruction of Justice and final verdict

No collusion in Wikipedia's voice

Lead neutrality

Wharton School

"Relationship with the press" section

Archiving

Poll on archiving delay

Mueller report summary in the headline as well as a more indepth description of Mr. Mueller's findings in the Special Counsel section of the article

Mueller report in the lead

Navigation menu

Search